Alexander v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 October 2021
• Docket Number: 21-1143C
• Parties: CORINTHIA J. ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

CORINTHIA J. ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 21-1143C

United States Court of Federal Claims

October 30, 2021

Molly A. Elkin, Law Offices of McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs. With her was Sarah M Block, Law Offices of McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP Washington, D.C.

Bret R. Vallacher, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant. With him were Reginald T. Blades Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Martin F. Hockey Jr., Acting Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, and Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division. Ted Booth, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, of counsel.

OPINION

MARIAN BLANK HORN JUDGE

The above captioned case was filed by 334 current or former employees at the Federal Correction Complex Beaumont (the Beaumont Institution) located in Beaumont, Texas. In plaintiffs' complaint, they allege they are bringing this action on behalf of themselves and other employees similarly situated for back pay, and other relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 216(b) (2018), 29 U.S.C. § 1331 (2018), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (2018), 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2018), 5 U.S.C. § 5596 (2018), and the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 207 (2018). In the United States Court of Federal Claims, plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on March 31, 2021 and then, on April 20, 2021, an amended complaint. After defendant filed a motion to dismiss on June 15, 2021, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 23, 2021. The second amended complaint alleges, "[p]laintiffs and other employees similarly situated have been entitled to FLSA overtime pay for all hours of work in excess of eight (8) in a day and/or forty (40) in a workweek." Plaintiffs claim "[d]efendant has suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to work at least 15-30 minutes each shift, and sometimes more, before and after their scheduled shift times without compensating Plaintiffs for this work time." Plaintiffs assert that in addition to their regular, compensated work time, they were each required to go through security screening, collect and don their belts and other required equipment, flip their accountability chit, ^[1] clear the sally port, ^[2] perform an equipment and information exchange, and walk to and from their assigned duty posts prior to and after their eighthour shifts. As relief, plaintiffs request the court:

(a) Enter judgment declaring that Defendant has willfully and wrongfully violated its statutory obligations, and deprived each Plaintiff of their rights under the FLSA and Title 5;

(b) Award each Plaintiff monetary damages, including backpay and liquidated damages equal to their unpaid compensation, plus interest;

(c) Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees to be paid by Defendant, and the costs and disbursements of this action; and

(d) Grant such other relief as may be just and proper.

(capitalization in original).

According to plaintiffs' second amended complaint, the Beaumont Institution is a federal correctional complex with three component facilities: FCI Beaumont Low, a low security correctional facility; FCI Beaumont Medium, a medium security correctional facility; and a United States Penitentiary Beaumont, a high security penitentiary. The three facilities in this lawsuit house over 4, 300 inmates, including those who are violent offenders.

Also, according to plaintiffs' second amended complaint, "[t]he Institution . . . is staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, by correctional officers, including Plaintiffs. The correctional officers' principal activity is maintaining the safety and security of the Institution, inmates, and staff." According to the second amended complaint, most of the posts to which plaintiffs are assigned are staffed for 16 or 24 hours per day. Some 24-hour posts are staffed with "three 8-hour paid shifts daily, often referred to as Morning Watch, Day Watch and Evening Watch." Further, according to plaintiffs, "[b]ecause the Institution has implemented a Compressed Work Schedule option, some 24-hour Housing Unit posts are staffed with two shifts of 12 hours, instead of three shifts of 8 hours." When there is a 24-hour post, for both 12-hour and 8-hour shifts, there is no paid overlap of guards. By contrast, "there has been a 15-minute scheduled, paid overlap between the two 8 hour shifts on 16-hour posts in the Institution since at least 2014."

Plaintiffs allege that before walking to their assigned posts at any of the three component sections in the Beaumont Institution, plaintiffs must clear the staff security screening in order to "perform their principal activity of maintaining safety and security by assuring that no contraband enters the Institution." On arrival, "[p]laintiffs assigned to a 24-hour post at any of the three facilities within Institution begin their unpaid pre-shift work when they start the process of clearing the staff screening site in the front lobby" of their assigned component section within the Beaumont Institution. After the security screening, plaintiffs "collect and don their duty belts and other required equipment after clearing the staff screening site, including required metal chains and chits, which are essential to hold keys and access equipment." Plaintiffs collect their equipment after clearing the screening "because Plaintiffs cannot wear their duty belts and metal chains as they walk through the upright metal detector without sounding the alarm."

Next, according to plaintiffs, they are visually identified by the Control Center officer in whichever facility within the Beaumont Institution they are assigned. This officer allows plaintiffs to enter "into a sally port, where they are required to flip their accountability chit signifying that they are on duty and inside the secured confines of the Institution." Also according to the second amended complaint, after clearing the sally port, plaintiffs walk

to their 24-hour posts inside the secure confines of the Institution. While walking to their posts, Plaintiffs supervise and monitor inmates, observe and correct inmate behavior, respond to inmate questions, check for security breaches in the perimeter fence and elsewhere inside the Institution, check for contraband, run to locations where body alarms sound, and respond to other emergencies as they arise.

Once they arrive at their assigned posts, plaintiffs "exchange equipment-including but not limited to radios, oleoresin capsicum ('OC') spray and keys-with the outgoing correctional officer assigned to that post. Plaintiffs also perform a vital (but unpaid) information exchange with the outgoing correctional officer about any significant security events that occurred the previous shift." Plaintiffs claim that their pre-shift preparations should be compensable time. After performing their paid shift, plaintiffs walk "from their posts to exit the secured perimeter" doing an uncompensated post-shift activity, during which they

are required to, and do, respond to emergencies, including violent fights between inmates, within the Institution on unpaid time when such emergencies occur while they are walking to their posts prior to their shifts, or while they are walking from their posts back to the Control Center after their shifts. Failure to respond to an emergency results in discipline up to and including termination.

Plaintiffs claim all these pre and post-shift activities also should be compensated.

Plaintiffs allege "[d]efendant has suffered or permitted Plaintiffs to work at least 1530 minutes each shift, and sometimes more, before and after their scheduled shift times without compensating Plaintiffs for this work time." Plaintiffs allege that the pre- and postshift activities previously described are work activities as specified by the FLSA, which entitle plaintiffs "to overtime compensation at a rate of not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours or work in excess or 8 hours in a work day and/or in excess of 40 in a workweek." As indicated above, plaintiffs allege, "[p]ursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover backpay and liquidated damages in an amount equal to their backpay for Defendant's failure to pay overtime compensation in compliance with the FLSA." Additionally, plaintiffs argue, "[p]ursuant to the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover interest on their backpay damages for Defendant's failure to pay them overtime compensation." Moreover, plaintiffs argue that they "are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596, as well as other applicable laws and regulations."

Defendant responded to plaintiffs' amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss and asserting that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim because

plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any of these preliminary and postliminary activities are both "integral and indispensable" to the work that they are "employed to perform," Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27, 32-33 (2014) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)), and exceed the 10-minute de minimis threshold, Carlsen v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 782, 798 (2006) ("the agency is not obligated to pay overtime when this work takes ten minutes or less"), aff'd, 521 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008), as corrected on reh'g (Apr. 29, 2008).

Defendant contends that plaintiffs' alleged principal activity of "'maintaining the safety and security of the Institution, inmates, and staff'" are "'conclusory statements of law and fact, '" which "'must be supported by factual...