Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1953,90-1953 |
| Citation | 954 F.2d 296 |
| Parties | 30 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1257, 60 USLW 2603, 121 Lab.Cas. P 35,601 Charles E. SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Matthew M. Moore, Deputy City Atty., Jackson, Miss., for defendant-appellant.
Elizabeth L. Gilchrist, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, REAVLEY and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
The City of Jackson, Mississippi appeals an adverse judgment on jury verdict for overtime pay which certain firefighters claimed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. Concluding that FLSA exempts the plaintiffs from the overtime pay requirement we reverse.
Plaintiffs are either district or battalion chiefs in the Combat Division of the City of Jackson Fire Department. A fire chief heads the department; a deputy chief heads the Combat Division. Those two administrators set department policy. The Combat Division performs the firefighting duties and is supported by a separate Administrative Division.
The city is divided into four districts, each served by five to seven fire stations. Each district chief oversees the 30 to 40 fire department employees assigned to the stations within that chief's district. Battalion chiefs are responsible for the business district and exercise authority over the district chiefs. Each station has at least one captain who is responsible for one piece of fire equipment and the attendant crew. The captains are also responsible for station maintenance and cleanup schedules. The district and battalion chiefs supervise the captains and are responsible for recommending to the fire chief any disciplinary action which may be appropriate.
The district and battalion chiefs work alternating shifts of 24 hours on and 48 hours off. Each workday the chiefs visit all stations within their districts. They handle all paperwork routed between the fire chief or administrative personnel and the stations. Each shift the district chiefs secure and log the work hours of all station personnel and report the data to the battalion chiefs who collect all reports of their district chiefs for transmittal to the administrative office. Each shift the district and battalion chiefs spend approximately one hour on the work logs and one and one-half hours visiting stations. The vast majority of their time is spent waiting to respond to firefighting or lifesaving dispatch calls.
The district and battalion chiefs are responsible for ensuring that each station has adequate firefighters and equipment ready to respond to calls for their services. These chiefs direct firefighting and lifesaving operations. When a firetruck is dispatched to a fire a captain accompanies the vehicle and takes initial charge at the scene. District and battalion chiefs respond to structural fire alarms but generally do not respond to grass or automobile fires. When a district chief responds he assumes control of the operation and may call for such additional equipment and firefighters as he deems necessary. The district chief decides when the units and personnel may withdraw from a scene and whether an arson investigation is warranted. A battalion chief on the scene typically assumes control of the scene. On infrequent occasions district and battalion chiefs may participate "hands on" in the firefighting operation.
There is a departmental training center and the captains supervise routine training drills, but the district and battalion chiefs are responsible for ensuring that the training is adequate. The district chiefs annually evaluate the performance of the captains. The battalion chiefs make annual evaluations of their district chiefs. In addition, battalion chiefs are charged with maintaining and updating the city's firefighting plans for major buildings.
The city declined to pay the overtime premium, contending that the district and battalion chiefs were exempt from that requirement because they were administrative and executive employees. The jury returned a contrary verdict and the city timely appealed.
Executive and administrative employees are exempt from the overtime compensation provisions of the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). The decision "whether an employee is exempt under the Act is primarily a question of fact which must be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard...." Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 835 F.2d 1135, 1137 (5th Cir.1988) (quoting Cobb v. Finest Foods, Inc., 755 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.1985), and quoted in Dalheim, infra). Although historical facts regarding the employment history, and inferences based on these facts, are reviewed under the factual standard, the ultimate decision whether an employee is exempt is a question of law. Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir.1990). Exemptions are to be narrowly construed. The burden of proving the applicability of a claimed exemption is on the employer. Brennan v. Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974).
An executive employee is an employee
whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, and includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees therein....
29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f). 1 Management duties clearly include: training subordinate employees; directing their work; maintaining work records; evaluating work for the purpose of recommending changes in status; handling employee complaints, grievances, and discipline; planning work; determining techniques used; apportioning work; and controlling the flow and distribution of materials. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. 2
An administrative employee is an employee
whose primary duty consists of the performance of [office or nonmanual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of his employer or his employer's customers], which includes work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment....
29 C.F.R. § 541.2(e)(2) (insertion from section 541.2(a)(1)). 3 Activities directly related to management policies are "those types of activities relating to the administrative operations of a business as distinguished from 'production.' " 29 C.F.R. § 541.205(a). Production...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gellhaus v. Wal–mart Stores Inc.
...213 F.3d 261, 264 (5th Cir.2000); Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler–Plymouth, Inc., 203 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir.2000); Smith v. City of Jackson, 954 F.2d 296, 298 (5th Cir.1992); Dalheim v. KDFW–TV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1224 (5th Cir.1990). “These exemptions are construed narrowly against the employe......
-
Singer v. City of Waco, Tex.
...That ultimate determination, however, relies on many factual determinations that can be resolved by a jury. See Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 954 F.2d 296, 298 (5th Cir.1992) ("[H]istorical facts regarding the employment history, and inferences based on these facts, are reviewed under th......
-
Brown v. Miller
...of a claimed exemption is on the employer. Brennan v. Corning Glass Works, 417 U.S. 188, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974).Smith v. Jackson, 954 F.2d 296, 298 (1992). We review a trial court's dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. State Emps. Ass'n of N.C, Inc. v. N.C......
-
Billingslea v. Southern Freight Inc
...material facts are undisputed, “the ultimate decision whether an employee is exempt is a question of law.” Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 954 F.2d 296, 298 (5th Cir.1992) (citation The Class to Which Plaintiff's Employer Belonged The first inquiry in determining whether Plaintiff was exem......
-
Table of cases
..., 351 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2003), §§23:3.B.1 Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 240-41 (2005), §17:6.a Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss. , 954 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1992), §§9:3.C, 9:3.D.2.a, 9:3.F Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss. , ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1536, 161 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2005), §§18:7.H.......
-
Table of cases
..., 351 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 2003), §§23:3.B.1 Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 240-41 (2005), §17:6.A Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss. , 954 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1992), §§9:3.C, 9:3.D.2.a, 9:3.F Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss. , ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1536, 161 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2005), §§18:7.H.......
-
Chapter § 2-4 29 CFR § 541.3. Scope of the Section 13(a)(1) Exemptions
...officials in fire or police departments can be considered as exempt administrative or executive employees. • Smith v. City of Jackson, 954 F.2d 296 (5th Cir. 1992) (fire chiefs). • Simmons v. City of Fort Worth, 805 F. Supp. 419 (N.D. Tex. 1992) (fire deputy and district chiefs). 2-4:1.2 Ex......