Alkire v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-1654C |
| Parties | RYAN ALKIRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | Court of Federal Claims |
Molly A. Elkin, McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, Washington, D.C., for Plaintiffs. With her on briefs was Sarah M. Block 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, United States. With him on briefs were Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Martin F Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C, as well as James Sellars, Assistant General Counsel, Employment Law Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Department of Justice, Atlanta, GA, and Nathan M. Atkinson, Assistant General Counsel, Employment Law Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, United States Department of Justice, Kansas City, KS.
Plaintiffs - current and former Federal Bureau of Prisons employees at Federal Correctional Institution Herlong ("FCI Herlong," "the Institution," or "the Prison") - seek overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), plus related forms of relief, for allegedly uncompensated pre- and post-shift activities. The government's motion to dismiss is ripe for disposition.[1] Although some aspects of the Complaint fail as a matter of law - in particular, Plaintiffs' claims involving time spent in pre-shift security screenings and certain claims over which this Court lacks jurisdiction - the remainder of the Complaint sets out well-pleaded facts sufficient to state claims upon which relief can be granted. See RCFC 12(b)(6). The motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs request backpay and liquidated damages under FLSA, as well as interest on their backpay under the Back Pay Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 5596, and attorneys' fees. Compl. ¶¶ 36-47. The Complaint alleges the following facts.
Plaintiffs are current or former correctional workers at FCI Herlong in Herlong, California. Compl. ¶ 4.[2] FCI Herlong is a medium-security facility housing over 950 male inmates convicted of federal crimes. Id. ¶ 8. Plaintiffs, as correctional workers, are charged with maintaining the Prison's safety and security:
The correctional officers' primary job duty is to maintain the safety and security of the Institution, staff and inmates. They are charged with performing this job duty every moment that they are within the Institution from the moment they begin [security] screening prior to their shifts until they exit the Institution after their shifts end. The plaintiffs perform their primary job duty by, among other things, maintaining constant vigilance to ensure that nothing out of the ordinary is occurring, immediately addressing any safety or security issues that they see no matter the location and time of day that it occurs, including before their paid shifts begin and after they end.
Plaintiffs' workdays are organized into 8-hour shifts at assigned duty posts. "Most of the posts are staffed for 16 or 24 hours per day, although some are staffed for only 8 hours per day." Id. ¶ 10. At the 16- and 24-hour posts, "[t]here is no scheduled overlap" between 8-hour shifts. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Plaintiffs allege that when working shifts at 16- or 24-hour posts, they must "perform work both before their scheduled paid start time and/or after the end of their scheduled paid shifts." Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs allege that the pre- and post-shift activities are unpaid and take approximately "15-30 minutes each shift, and sometimes more[.]" Id. ¶ 14.
The pre- and post-shift activities at issue include (1) pre-shift security screening, [3] (2) donning equipment, (3) clearing the "sally port" and checking into the Prison, (4) walking to the assigned post, (5) obtaining equipment and information from the outgoing officer, and (6) leaving the post at the end of the day. I set out Plaintiffs' principal allegations concerning those activities in turn.
On arrival at the Prison, Plaintiffs must pass through a screening site in the Prison lobby and participate in a "mandatory staff security screening." Id. ¶ 21. Without the screening, "cell phones and other contraband could enter the Institution which would put the staff, inmates and Institution at risk of security breaches." Id. Plaintiffs allege that undergoing the security screening is an essential part of their work "because, among other things, in performing this task, plaintiffs ensure that no contraband enters the Institution, thereby ensuring the safety and security of the Institution, staff and inmates." Id.
Once through security, Plaintiffs must "collect and don their duty belts and other required equipment …, including required metal chains and chits." Id. ¶ 22. The chains are used "to fasten keys"; the chits "contain the names of the officers and are required to access and account for important equipment[.]" Id. According to Plaintiffs, collecting and donning the equipment is essential to their work because it allows them to "access necessary equipment" and "ensur[es] that [Plaintiffs'] keys and other equipment can be affixed to their person and secured from the reach of inmates." Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiffs allege that they can only don their equipment after the security screening "because the plaintiffs cannot wear their duty belts and metal chains as they walk through the upright metal detector without sounding the alarm." Id. ¶ 22.
After donning their equipment, Plaintiffs are "visually identified by the appropriate Control Center officer," "flip their accountability chit" - a personal marker for each employee showing whether the employee is in or out of the Prison - and "clear the front lobby sally port." Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs then walk to a "locked slider gate," which they pass through to the area where inmates are housed. Id. Plaintiffs allege that this process "assur[es] that only authorized individuals enter the secured confines of the Institution and that the employees in the Control Center and management know exactly who is inside the Institution at all times." Id.
When Plaintiffs reach the secure area, they must stop by the "Lieutenants' office" to "check in with a supervisor and discuss any pertinent information from the previous tour." Id. ¶ 27.[4] They may then walk to their posts.
While on the way to their posts, "[P]laintiffs are in uniform and identifiable to the inmates as on-duty correctional officers." Id. On their walks, Plaintiffs must "observe and correct inmate behavior, respond to inmate questions, check for security breaches in the perimeter fence and elsewhere in the Institution, check for contraband, run to locations where body alarms sound, and respond to other emergencies as they arise." Id. Plaintiffs allege on that basis that they perform their ordinary duties as correctional workers when walking to their posts. Id.
Upon arriving at their posts, Plaintiffs exchange information and equipment "including radios, batteries, keys, and OC pepper spray" with the outgoing officer. Id. ¶ 28. Id. The outgoing officer tells the incoming officer about any significant security incidents or concerns from the prior shift, which officers allegedly must know about in order to do their work. Id. Although it is not clear whether Plaintiffs intend to pursue the issue, Plaintiffs also allege that they must "don personal protective equipment and sanitize their unit's shared plastic face shield" when they are working "in housing units being used as COVID-19 units" to avoid COVID-19 exposure and transmission. Id. ¶ 30.
Plaintiffs lastly allege that they perform many of the same activities, also without compensation, when their shifts end. Plaintiffs allegedly must "exchang[e] information and equipment on the assigned post with oncoming staff[.]" Id. ¶ 31. They must then "remain[] vigilant, alert, and ready to respond to emergencies" while headed back to the exit, "observing and correcting inmate behavior, looking for contraband, [and] responding to body alarms and other emergencies" on the way. Id.
Plaintiffs allege that the post-shift walk involves the same responsibilities as the pre-shift walk. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Plaintiffs then must "return[] equipment to the Control Center" before leaving. Id. ¶ 31.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to adjudicate "any claim against the United States founded … upon … any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department … in cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C § 1491(a)(1).[5] Because the Tucker Act is "a jurisdictional statute [that] does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money damages," United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976) (citing Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 605-07 (1967)), parties asserting Tucker Act jurisdiction must "identify a substantive right for money damages against the United States, separate from the Tucker Act itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial