Clawson v. Grays Harbor College Dist. No. 2
| Decision Date | 23 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 72113-1.,72113-1. |
| Citation | 148 Wash.2d 528,61 P.3d 1130 |
| Parties | Calvin C. CLAWSON, Diane Butcher-Evans, Larry Bullis, Corinne L. Baker, Zoe Grimshaw, David K. Connolly, K. Ann McCartney, Sara J. Sanchez, Linda Sturza, Molly Tenenbaum, Debbie Wallin, and Keiko Yamaguchi, Petitioners, v. GRAYS HARBOR COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 2, Green River Community College District No. 10, Seattle Community College District VI, Skagit Valley Community College, and Whatcom Community College District No. 21, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Steven B. Frank, Frank Freed Roberts Subit & Thomas, Seattle, for Petitioners.
Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, Warren H. Fischer, Olympia, for Respondents.
Martin S. Garfinkel and David N. Mark on behalf of Washington State Labor Council and Washington Education Association, amici curiae.
Petitioners Diane L. Butcher-Evans and K. Ann McCartney, part-time community college instructors, seek discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division One, which affirmed an order of the King County Superior Court dismissing on summary judgment their claim against community colleges for unpaid overtime wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, chapter 49.46 RCW.2 We granted review. We affirm.
The sole question in this case is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming a decision of the trial court concluding that part-time community college instructors are professional employees compensated on a salary basis and therefore not covered by the wage and overtime provisions of the Washington Minimum Wage Act.
The material facts are not in dispute. The parties dispute only the legal effect of those facts.
Petitioners Diane L. Butcher-Evans and K. Ann McCartney were employed as part-time faculty members (instructors) at Green River Community College and Whatcom Community College.3 They, along with ten other part-time instructors, sued five of Washington's community colleges4 for unpaid minimum and overtime wages they claimed were owed them under the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), chapter 49.46 RCW.5 The instructors claimed they were hourly employees and that the colleges' compensation arrangement did not pay them for their non-classroom work, including, for example, preparing for class, grading examinations, developing coursework, and attending meetings. The colleges responded that the instructors were employed in a "bona fide professional capacity" and compensated on a "salary basis," thus exempting them from the MWA.
The community colleges hire part-time faculty (instructors) under individual contracts on either an annual or quarterly basis.6 The colleges calculate an instructor's compensation by multiplying the number of credits or "contact hours," which are the number of in-class instruction hours for each course,7 by the monetary rates specified in the applicable collective bargaining agreements.8 The instructors are then paid at regular intervals throughout the quarter in equal or near-equal installments9 regardless of their teaching performance or the number of instructional days in a pay period.10 The applicable collective bargaining agreements between the colleges and the instructors' union state that an instructor's compensation includes payment for work done outside the classroom, such as "course preparation, grading, student conferences, and office hours."11
Petitioner Butcher-Evans' complete employment history is not before us. An example is that she was hired by Green River Community College to teach two mathematics classes during the 1996 fall quarter for $4,129.40.12 Beginning on October 10, 1996 she was paid $688.25 and then was paid $688.23 on or near the 10th and 25th of each month until the end of the quarter.13 These payments were made even though the number of instruction days per pay period ranged from 6 to 11.14 The following chart illustrates the compensation Petitioner Butcher-Evans received during the 1996 fall quarter:
CONTRACT SUMMARY FOR PETITIONER DIANE I. BUTCHER-EVANS
GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
INSTRUCTION
PERIOD
AMOUNT
PAY DATE
GROSS PAY Fall Quarter 1996 $4,129.40 October 10 6 $ 688.25 October 25 11 688.23 November 8 1 688.23 November 25 9 688.23 December 10 8 688.23 December 24 7 688.23 __ __________ Totals 52 $4,129.40
Petitioner McCartney's complete employment history is not before us. An example is that she was hired by Whatcom Community College to teach two public speaking classes during the spring quarter for $3,358.08.15 Beginning on April 30, 1998 she was paid $1,119.36 and was paid that same amount on May 29, 1998 and on June 10, 1998,16 regardless of the number of instruction days during each pay period. The following chart illustrates the compensation Petitioner McCartney received during the 1998 spring quarter:
_______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTRACT CONTRACT INSTRUCTION PERIOD AMOUNT PAY DATE DAYS GROSS PAY _______________________________________________________________________________________ Spring Quarter 1998 $3,358.08 April 30 19 $1,119.36 May 29 20 1,119.36 June 10 15 1,119.36 Totals 54 $3,358.08 _______________________________________________________________________________________
Respondent Green River Community College prorated pay deductions from part-time faculty whenever instructors missed classroom hours for personal or health reasons after their accrued sick or annual leave had been exhausted.17 The deductions were calculated by multiplying the number of contact hours missed by the compensation rate under the collective bargaining agreement.18
On September 15, 1999, seeking damages for unpaid overtime wages claimed to be owed them under the MWA, Petitioners, and ten other part-time instructors, filed this action in the King County Superior Court. Because the pay practices of the colleges are uniform, the trial court stayed the claims against three of the colleges and permitted the claims to proceed against Respondents Green River Community College and Whatcom Community College to determine whether the part-time instructors at those schools were exempt from the MWA.19 Class certification was deferred and only Petitioners Butcher-Evans and McCartney proceeded as plaintiffs.20
The parties submitted to the trial court the sole issue of whether the instructors were compensated on a "salary or fee basis." Both parties stipulated that the instructors met all other criteria of a "professional," but reserved the question of whether the instructors were salaried employees under the MWA.21 In a motion for summary judgment, Petitioners argued that the colleges' use of an hourly rate to calculate salary and Green River Community College's use of prorated hour-based deductions for certain types of classroom absences rendered them employees under the MWA and therefore subject to the Act's overtime wage requirements. Respondents cross-moved for summary judgment and argued that the part-time instructors were salaried professional employees who were exempt from the Act.
On December 8, 2000 the Honorable Suzanne M. Barnett granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents and dismissed Petitioners' claims.22 Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division One, arguing that the trial court had misinterpreted the MWA and prior employment case law. On December 10, 2001 the Court of Appeals, the Honorable H. Joseph Coleman writing, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Petitioners' claims, holding that part-time instructors at the community colleges are exempt from the MWA as persons employed in a "professional capacity" and compensated on a "salary basis."23
The Court of Appeals also adopted a rule based upon a federal administrative regulation and held that "Green River Community College's policy of deducting an employee's pay for partial-day absences after accrued sick leave has been exhausted" did not affect that employee's exempt status under the MWA.24
Petitioners sought review by this court which was granted on July 1, 2002.
We must determine whether Petitioners as part-time instructors at community colleges are employees compensated on an hourly basis and therefore entitled to protections and benefits under the MWA or whether they are professional salaried employees exempt from the Act. The answer requires correct application of the "salary basis" test we adopted in Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc.25
This court reviews an order on summary judgment de novo.26 It engages in the same inquiry as the trial court, treating all facts and reasonable inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.27 Where, as here, the parties do not dispute the material facts, this court will affirm an order on summary judgment if the successful moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.28
Our MWA, chapter 49.46 RCW, generally requires an employer to pay employees a certain minimum hourly wage and compensate them for time worked in excess of 40 hours in a given work week at a rate of at least one and one-half times the employees' regular wage rate.29 The MWA, however, exempts from this requirement certain classes of employees, including "[a]ny individual employed in a bona fide ... professional capacity."30 The Act does not define "professional," but grants the Department of Labor and Industries (DLI) authority to "define[ ] and delimit[ ]" the term.31
Under the DLI's definition of "professional," published in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) XXX-XXX-XXX, an employee is exempt from the MWA if the employee fulfills certain duties32 and is compensated "on a salary or fee basis."33 WAC 296-128-530 states that:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc.
...the same standard as the trial court. Stalter v. State, 151 Wash.2d 148, 155, 86 P.3d 1159 (2004); Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 148 Wash.2d 528, 536, 61 P.3d 1130 (2003). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions......
-
Certification from the U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash. in Mariano Carranza v. Dovex Fruit Co., 94229-3
...is based on the FLSA."); see also Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 109 Wash. App. 379, 35 P.3d 1176 (2001), aff’d, 148 Wash.2d 528, 61 P.3d 1130 (2003) ; Tift v. Prof’l Nursing Servs., Inc., 76 Wash. App. 577, 886 P.2d 1158 (1995). "At least where there is no contrary legislative ......
-
City of Sumner v. Walsh, 71451-7.
... ... Officer Strader then took Justin into custody. 2 ... At the Sumner police ... event sponsored by a local school or college, but returns home during curfew hours by way of ... Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 511, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Sanders v. City of Seattle
...the same standard as the trial court. Stalter v. State, 151 Wash.2d 148, 155, 86 P.3d 1159 (2004); Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 148 Wash.2d 528, 536, 61 P.3d 1130 (2003). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions......