Adams v. City of Kansas City
| Decision Date | 29 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19-CV-00093-W-WBG |
| Parties | CRAIG ADAMS and JOSEPH KNOPP, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
CRAIG ADAMS and JOSEPH KNOPP, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Defendant.
No. 19-CV-00093-W-WBG
United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
September 29, 2021
ORDER AND OPINION (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (2) DENYING THE CITY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE
W. BRIAN GADDY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending are Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 556), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 558), and Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Doc. 567). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to file Sur-Reply.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History
Defendant City of Kansas City, Missouri (“the City”) employs Plaintiffs Craig Adams and Joseph Knopp as firefighters. In January 2019, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Jackson County alleging the City breached a contract and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by miscalculating overtime pay. Doc. 1-1 at 3-11.[1] In February 2019, the City removed the matter to this Court. Doc. 1.
In January 2020, the Honorable John T. Maughmer granted Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action of current and former firefighters employed by the City who received certification or incentive pay at any time since January 10, 2016. Doc. 45. Pursuant to the Court's Order, those firefighters were notified of the collective action and instructed to submit consent forms if they wanted to join the collective action. Id. at 7. More than 450 consent forms were submitted by April 14, 2020. Docs. 49-529, 531.
In August 2020, the City moved to decertify the collective action and asked that certain individuals be removed from the collective action. Docs. 534, 536. In addition, both parties filed summary judgment motions. Docs. 538, 540. In mid-September 2020, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Plaintiffs'[2] breach of contract claim, and due to a scheduled mediation, the parties moved to stay briefing on the pending motions. Doc. 544-45. Judge Maughmer granted the parties' request and stayed all briefing. Doc. 546.
Although the matter was not resolved during mediation, the parties agreed to stipulate to several facts. Doc. 550 at 1. Due to the dismissal of the breach of contract claim and the parties' forthcoming stipulation of facts, the parties jointly asked the Court to find the pending summary judgment motions moot and allow the parties to submit new summary judgments motions. Id. at 2. On September 23, 2020, Judge Maughmer granted the request, declared the summary judgment motions moot, and set deadlines for the parties to file their stipulation of facts and new summary judgment motions. Doc. 551. The City's motions to decertify the collective action and remove individuals from the collective action (Docs. 538, 540) remained pending, and the parties continued to brief those motions.
On September 28, 2020, this matter was transferred to the undersigned. Doc. 553. And on October 19, 2020, the parties consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction. Docs. 555, 555-1. Shortly thereafter, on October 23, 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Docs. 556, 558. On December 8, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a sur-reply to Defendant's summary judgment motion. Doc. 567. On March 30, 2021, the Court denied the City's Motion to Decertify the Collective Action and granted the City's Motion to Remove Individuals from the Collective Action. Doc. 569. The Court now turns its attention to the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
B. Facts Applicable to the Summary Judgment Motions[3]
The City and the International Association of Fire Fighters Local No. 42, to which Plaintiffs belong, are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Doc. 554 at 1; Doc. 554-1.[4] The City pays its firefighters according to the monthly wage scales appended to the CBA. Doc. 554 at 2; Doc. 554-1 at 75-76, 112-18. Firefighters are “placed on the scales” based on “their specific rank and tenure that is commensurate with the years the member has in rank.” Doc. 554 at 2; Doc. 554-1 at 75-76, 112-18.
In addition, firefighters may be entitled to wage augments for special duties, assignments, and/or certifications. Doc. 554 at 2; Doc. 554-1 at 76-78. Wage augments provide additional compensation as a percentage, ranging from three to ten percent, of a firefighter's salary or an additional amount of money, ranging from $25 to $75, per pay period. Doc. 554 at 2; Doc. 554-1 at 76-78. These wage augments and their pay codes are as follows:
• Members with an associate degree “in a field reasonably related to the fire service… shall receive…$25.00 per pay period.” Doc. 554-1 at 76. This “educational incentive” is pay code “ED1” and is identified as “FF ED1” on pay advices.[5] Doc. 554 at 2
• Members with a bachelor's degree “in a field reasonably related to the [f]ire [s]ervice… shall receive…$50.00 per pay period.” Doc. 554-1 at 76. This “educational incentive” is pay code “ED2” and appears as “FF ED2” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 2.
• Members with a master's degree “in a field reasonably related to the fire service… shall receive $65.00 per pay period.” Doc. 554-1 at 76. This “educational incentive” is pay code “ED3” and is designated as “FF ED3” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 2.
• Members with a doctoral degree “in a field reasonably related to the fire service …shall receive $75.00 per pay period.” Doc. 554-1 at 76. This “educational incentive” is pay code “ED4” and appears as “FF ED4” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 2.
• Hazardous Materials (“HazMat”) Team members “who achieve and maintain the operational level of training and certification shall receive additional pay of three percent (3%) above what his/her salary would otherwise be.” Doc. 554-1 at 77. This “certification incentive” is pay code “HZ1” and is listed as “HAZ1 FIRE” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 3.
• HazMat Team members “who achieve and maintain the technical level of training and certification shall receive additional pay of five percent (5%) above what his/her salary would otherwise be.” Doc. 554-1 at 77. This “certification incentive” is pay code “HZ2” and is included as “HAZ2 FIRE” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 3.[6]
• Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (“ARFF”) Division members “who achieve and maintain the required ARFF training and certification shall receive additional pay of five percent (5%) above what their salary would otherwise be.” Doc. 554-1 at 77, 97. This “certification incentive” is pay code “AR1” and is identified as “FF AR1 5%” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 3.
• “Members assigned to Pumpers 8, 9, [and] 25” and District 102 District Safety Officers (“DSOs”) who “achieve and maintain the required ARFF training and certification shall receive additional pay of three percent (3%) above what their salary would otherwise be.” Doc. 554 at 3; Doc. 554-1, at 77. This “certification incentive” is pay code “AR2” and is designated as “FF AF2 3%” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 3.
• Members “assigned to Pumper 16 shall receive additional pay of five percent (5%) above what their salary would otherwise be, if they have participated in ARFF training.” Doc. 554 at 3-4; Doc. 554-1 at 77. This “assignment bonus” is pay code “P16” and appears on pay advices as “FF P16 5%.” Doc. 554 at 3-4.
• Rescue Division members “shall receive additional pay of five percent (5%) above what their salary would otherwise be.” Doc. 554 at 4; Doc. 554-1 at 77. This “assignment bonus” is pay code “RSC” and is identified as “RESCUE” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 4.
• Credentialed members “permanently assigned to a cross trained dual role ALS [advanced life-saving][7] company…shall receive three percent (3%) bonus pay.” Doc. 554 at 4; Doc. 554-1 at 78. This “assignment bonus” is pay code “SQA” and appears on pay advices as “Squad Ince.” Doc. 554 at 4.[8]
• “Members who have successfully completed a language proficiency assessment of a foreign language or American Sign Language…shall receive $50.00 per pay period.” Doc. 554 at 4; Doc. 554-1 at 78. This certification incentive is pay code “FOL, ” and it is designated as “Foreign La” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 4.
• Members serving as field training officers or instructors in specified areas receive additional pay of ten percent (10%) above what their salary would otherwise be. Doc. 554 at 4; Doc. 554-1 at 77. This “assignment bonus” is pay code “TRG, ” and it is listed as “FF TRG 10%” on pay advices. Doc. 554 at 4.
The CBA pronounces the wage augments “shall not be regarded as wages.” Doc. 554-1 at 76. Nonetheless, the parties stipulate the wage augments are considered “remuneration” and are included in the “regular rate” as defined by the FLSA. Doc. 554 at 4. According to the CBA and the parties' stipulation, firefighters assigned to 24-hour shifts “shall average 49.5 hours per week.”[9] Doc. 554 at 1; Doc. 554-1 at 40. And firefighters' “normal FLSA work period” is twenty-eight days. Id. Regarding overtime, both the CBA and the parties' stipulation proclaim firefighters “shall receive overtime pay at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours actually worked in excess of 212 hours in any 28-day work period.” Doc. 554 at 1-2; Doc. 554-1 at 40; Doc. 564 at 12.
The City pays its firefighters every two weeks. Doc. 554 at 5. Initially, the City pays a firefighter his or her “base hourly rate, ”[10] as calculated by the City...
To continue reading
Request your trial