Baytos v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-1085 C |
| Parties | RAYMOND BAYTOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Claims Court |
Diana Jane Nobile, McGillivary Steele Elkin LLP, Washington, D.C for Plaintiffs.
Brendan David Jordan, United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., with whom were Brian M Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director, of counsel, for Defendant.
The Government moved to dismiss this collective action brought by current and former correctional officers for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs allege the Government failed to compensate them for work performed before and after their shifts. The Government contends that the activities for which Plaintiffs seek compensation are not integral and indispensable to Plaintiffs' principal activities, nor do the activities take more than a de minimis amount of time to perform. Because the Government seeks to impose a higher pleading standard than is required by law or this Court's precedent, the Court denies the Government's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs are 146 current and former correctional workers[2] employed by the United States at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) and/or Federal Satellite Low (FSL) Elkton in Lisbon, Ohio (collectively, the "Institution"). ECF No. 11 ¶¶ 1, 4. Plaintiffs filed this collective action alleging the Government violated their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the Government failed to compensate them with overtime pay as the FLSA requires for certain pre- and post-shift activities they performed beyond their regularly scheduled 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week of work performed. ECF No. 11 ¶ 40. Plaintiffs seek relief under the and the Back Pay Act (BPA), 5 U.S.C. § 5596, including backpay, liquidated damages plus interest, and reasonable attorney's fees. ECF No. 11 Prayer for Relief.
The Institution is a low security prison facility that houses approximately 1, 500 inmates convicted of various federal crimes including violent and drug-related offenses. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiffs' principal activity "is maintaining the safety and security of the Institution, inmates, and staff." Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs must perform this "principal activity every moment that they are within the Institution from the moment they begin screening prior to their shifts, until they exit the Institution after their shift ends." Id.
Correctional officers staff posts within the Institution 24 hours per day, 365 days a year. Id. Posts are staffed for 8, 16, or 24 hours per day. Id. ¶ 11. Posts staffed for 24 hours per day are divided into three 8-hour shifts referred to as Morning Watch, Day Watch, and Evening Watch. Id. ¶¶ 11-12. At the beginning and end of these shifts, Plaintiffs must be present, in uniform, and have all assigned equipment and pertinent post information. When staffing these 24-hour posts, Plaintiffs "perform more than 8 hours and 10 minutes of work each day because plaintiffs perform work both before their scheduled paid start time and/or after the end of their scheduled paid shifts." Id. ¶ 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs must work "at least 15-30 minutes each shift, and sometimes more, before and after their scheduled shift times" without compensation. Id. ¶ 14.
Plaintiffs contend that their compensable workday begins when they start the process of clearing the staff screening site in the lobby. Id. ¶ 19. At the security screening, Plaintiffs pass through a metal detector and place equipment on an x-ray belt. Id. After this, Plaintiffs "collect and don their duty belts, protective vests, and other required equipment . . . which are essential to hold keys and access equipment." Id. ¶ 19. This step must be completed on the premises of the Institution. Id. ¶¶ 19-20.
After clearing the staff screening site, Plaintiffs at FCI Elkton enter the Control Center sally port where they "flip their accountability chit signifying that they are on duty." Id. ¶ 21. At FCI Elkton Plaintiffs then clear the sally port, walk down an outdoor walkway, and clear a locked slider gate that leads into the Institution's outdoor compound. Id. Plaintiffs then proceed to their duty posts. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. At FSL Elkton, Plaintiffs collect their equipment after clearing the staff screening site, clear a locked, glass door leading into the Compound, then proceed to their assigned duty post. Id. ¶ 23. At both facilities, from the moment Plaintiffs enter the staff screening site until they arrive at their duty station, Plaintiffs perform activities including, inter alia, exchanging equipment and information with the outgoing correctional officers, supervising and monitoring inmates, and responding to emergencies as they arise. Id. ¶¶ 22, 24. Plaintiffs engage in these activities without compensation for at least 15-30 minutes per day before and after their scheduled shifts. Id. ¶ 14.
Plaintiffs allege that their "principal activity is maintaining the safety and security of the Institution, inmates, and staff." Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs perform this principal activity "from the moment they begin screening prior to their shifts until they exit the Institution after their shifts end." Id. Plaintiffs do so "by, among other things, maintaining constant vigilance to ensure that nothing out of the ordinary is occurring, immediately addressing any 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." Id. The specific pre- and post-shift activities Plaintiffs allege are compensable include the staff security screening, donning of the necessary equipment, flipping their chit, walking to their duty posts, exchanging equipment and information with the incoming/outgoing correctional officer, and exiting the Institution.
When clearing the staff screening site, Plaintiffs contend they "perform their principal activity of maintaining safety and security and assist in assuring no contraband enters the Institution." Id. ¶ 19. Plaintiffs also assert that the donning of necessary equipment is compensable because "plaintiffs cannot wear their duty belts, protective vests, and metal chains as they walk through the upright metal detector without sounding the alarm." Id. Nor can Plaintiffs dispense with the donning of their equipment because the equipment is necessary for Plaintiffs to perform their principal activity of maintaining safety and security in the Institution. Id.
Further, after flipping their accountability chit and during the walk to their duty posts, Plaintiffs "perform their principal activities of supervising and monitoring inmates and maintaining safety and security" because they are "in uniform, identifiable to the inmates and staff as correctional officers, and they perform patrol and security work" while remaining "vigilant, alert, and ready to . . . respond to emergencies." Id. ¶ 24.
Upon arriving at their posts, the incoming correctional officers perform an information exchange with the outgoing correctional officers regarding "any significant security events that occurred during the previous shift . . . ." Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs allege that during this time the incoming correctional officer must "inspect, account for, and exchange equipment . . . with the outgoing correctional officer assigned to that post." Id. Plaintiffs claim this information and equipment exchange is "integral and indispensable to Plaintiffs' principal activities of maintaining safety and security of staff, inmates, and the Institution." Id. ¶ 28. This is because the exchange of equipment and information "ensur[es] accountability for keys and correctional equipment so that such items do not fall into the hands of inmates, as well as [ensures] that oncoming officers have all information necessary to maintain the safety and security of the inmates, staff and post during their shift." Id. ¶ 26. The shifts of the incoming and outgoing officers do not overlap during this equipment and information exchange. Id. ¶¶ 26, 29.
While walking back from their duty posts after their shifts, Plaintiffs must "remain[] vigilant, alert, and ready to respond to emergencies . . . observing and correcting inmate behavior, looking for contraband, [and] responding to body alarms and other emergencies . . . ." Id. ¶ 26.
"A motion to dismiss . . . for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate when the facts asserted by the plaintiff do not entitle him to a legal remedy." United Pac. Ins. Co. v. United States 464 F.3d 1325, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). As the Supreme Court explained, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). And to be "plausible on its face," the complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Cary v. United States, 552 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (). In other words, the complaint must contain enough detail "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences of fact do not suffice to...
To continue reading
Request your trial