Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 6:03 CV 1. |
| Citation | 318 F.Supp.2d 443 |
| Parties | Antonio CAMARGO v. TRAMMELL CROW INTEREST COMPANY, d/b/a Crow Holdings. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Richard S. Fischer, Nacogdoches, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Steven Randolph McCown of Littler, Mendelson, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
This is an action for overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") which came on for hearing before the Court, without a jury, the 3rd day of February, 2004. The principle issue presented is whether or not Plaintiff's work was of such a nature that it fell under either the Agricultural Exemption or the Forestry Exemption from overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. After considering the pleadings, the evidence, and the arguments presented, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that any conclusion of law is deemed to be a finding of fact, it is adopted as such; and likewise, any finding of fact that is deemed to be a conclusion of law is so adopted.
Defendant, Trammel Crow Interest Company, d/b/a Crow Holdings ("Crow"), operates an enterprise called "Mill Creek Farm," which consists of approximately 10,000 acres in Wood County, Texas. The primary commercial activity of Mill Creek Farm is the growth of timber for harvest and sale. Of the 10,000 acres, 8,7781 acres is forested and dedicated to timber production. In 2003, $170,000 in timber was sold. In 2002, $140,000 in timber was sold. The timber operation is primarily passive. Selection and appraisal of timber to be cut in the field (cruising as it is called), the actual cutting and harvesting of the timber, and the transporting of the cut logs to buyer mills is all done by outside contractors. Some forestry related work is done by Crow employees including removing deadwood from fire breaks and fence rows, maintaining fences, firebreaks, and roads into the forested area, and annual planting of seedlings. The remaining acreage contains a cattle operation, of approximately 100 cows, which are bred for the purpose of producing calves and a small hay production operation. In 2003, $26,000.00 in cattle were sold. There is also a small fruit tree operation of 40 to 60 trees, which have not yet produced a crop.
The property is also the site of a private home of Trammel Crow, a swimming pool with bath house, a guest house, one or two residences for managerial employees, a building containing the office of the operation, vehicle and animal barns, and storage sheds. The lawn area around the private residences, and other buildings consists of 14 to 16 acres. The acreage around Mr. Crow's residence consists of about 1/3rd of this lawn acreage. There is considerable recreational use of the property by the owner, his family, and guests.2
Mill Creek Farm employs approximately 15 people, including two housekeepers at the Crow residence, three managerial or supervisory employees, a bookkeeper, a housekeeper at the offices, two cowboys involved in the cattle operation, and six other manual labor employees, including Plaintiff, Antonio Camargo ("Camargo").
Prior to April 15, 2000, Camargo worked almost exclusively in Crow's commercial nursery operation, which was clearly an agricultural enterprise. However, Crow sold off the nursery operation in April 2000 and Camargo was reassigned to other duties on the property. Camargo's duties varied with the season. In warm weather months, his job consisted largely of lawn and garden maintenance, watering, mowing, planting and tending ornamental plants. His hot weather duties also included washing the numerous vehicles owned by the operation, including cars, jeeps, trucks and 4 wheelers ("ATV's") and motorcycles that were used by guests.
His usual duties during all seasons, until the hiring of Marcelina Vargas Rubio in August, 2002,3 included cleaning the office building, which took approximately one hour a day. Camargo's general duties also included cleaning up porches and the area around the private residences where chickens made messes, picking up trash, and cleaning the machine shop. In colder months the lawn care duties changed from watering and mowing to raking leaves, picking up trash, which included fallen tree branches around the lawns and burning them. Plaintiff also filled in pot holes in roads between the various buildings, split fire wood for residents or guests, washed windows, hauled brush, and other minor jobs on the property. Occasional duties included picking up dead tree branches from fire breaks and along fence lines and occasional fertilizing of fruit trees. He would also clean areas around deer feeders and plant grass around deer feeders in anticipation of the deer hunting season. While on rare occasions Plaintiff worked in the orchard or in the forest, the greatest majority of Plaintiff's job duties centered around the residences, and the lawns and property around the residences, vehicle barns, and office building.4
Plaintiff's rate of pay was as follows:
Pay Rate Hours in Excess
Dates: Per Hour of 40 per week
1/2/015-8/30/01 $7.35 294
8/31/01-8/31/02 $7.72 565.5
9/1/02-11/21/02 $7.95 153
Plaintiff was not paid overtime for his hours in excess of forty hours per week.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that for the FLSA to apply, (1) an employee must have been engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and (2) the annual gross volume of sales made or business done by Defendant has exceeded Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($500,000.00), exclusive of all excise taxes pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A). Defendant does not contest these issues and the Court finds that the requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A) are met.
The Fifth Circuit has described the role of the FLSA as follows:
The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted to provide a minimal standard of living necessary for the health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers and to prescribe certain minimum standards for working conditions. In applying the Act to the facts at hand, we must liberally construe it `to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with congressional direction' in fulfillment of its humanitarian and remedial purposes.
Brennan v. Plaza Shoe Store, Inc., 522 F.2d 843, 846 (8th Cir.1975), citing Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates, 358 U.S. 207, 211, 79 S.Ct. 260, 264, 3 L.Ed.2d 243 (1959). See also Brennan v. Wilson Building, Inc., 478 F.2d 1090, 1094 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 156, 38 L.Ed.2d 105 (1973). Exemptions are to be narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them and their application are to be limited to those establishments plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit. Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 456, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1960). The U.S. Department of Labor's regulations interpreting the FLSA are entitled to deference. Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392, 398-99, 116 S.Ct. 1396, 134 L.Ed.2d 593 (1996).
The Agricultural Exemption:
The FLSA contains an exemption for agricultural activity, found at 29 U.S.C. § 203(f), that exempts from the overtime pay requirement primary agriculture, which means farming in all its branches, and secondary agriculture, which means other practices performed either by a farmer or on a farm incidental to or in conjunction with the farming operations. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U.S. 755, 762-63, 69 S.Ct. 1274, 93 L.Ed. 1672 (1949). Plaintiff did minimal agricultural work. Crow had other hourly workers, designated as "cowboys" who were assigned to the cattle and related activities.
The inclusion of "forestry or lumbering operations" by a farmer or on a farm within the 29 U.S.C. § 203(f) exemption limits the forestry and lumbering operations which are exempt under that provision. 29 C.F.R. § 780.200. Forestry and lumbering operations not performed by a farmer or on a farm do not fall within the primary agricultural exemption to the FLSA's overtime requirements. See Chao v. North Carolina Growers Association, 280 F.Supp.2d 500, 507 (W.D.N.C.2003); 29 C.F.R. § 780.115. In determining whether activities fit within the exemption for secondary agriculture, the question is "whether the ... employee's activities are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. Alexander Acosta Sec'y Labor v. Timberline S. LLC
...analysis applies where an employee engages in some exempt activities and some non-exempt activities. Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co., 318 F. Supp. 2d 443, 447 (E.D. Tex. 2004) ("If an employee in the same work week performs both work which is exempt from overtime requirements and work......
-
Tijerina-Salazar v. Venegas
...employee's activities are inevitably ‘incident to or in conjunction with' the farming operation.”[4] Camargo v. Trammell Crow Int. Co., 318 F.Supp.2d 443, 447 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (quoting Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392, 401-04 (1996)). As set forth above, the evidence demonstrates Pla......
-
Wages, Hours, and Overtime
...includes horticulture. 29 U.S.C. §203(f). Courts construe this exemption narrowly, See, e.g., Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co. , 318 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004). The availability of this exemption does not turn upon the technicalities of corporate organization within which farming......
-
Wages, Hours, and Overtime
...includes horticulture. 29 U.S.C. §203(f). Courts construe this exemption narrowly, See, e.g., Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co. , 318 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004). The availability of this exemption does not turn upon the technicalities of corporate organization within which farming......
-
Wages, hours, and overtime
...includes horticulture. 29 U.S.C. §203(f). Courts construe this exemption narrowly, See, e.g., Camargo v. Trammell Crow Interest Co. , 318 F. Supp. 2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004). The availability of this exemption does not turn upon the technicalities of corporate organization within which farming......