Clayton v. Delmarva Cmty. Servs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 March 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. RDB-18-2511
• Citation: 447 F.Supp.3d 404
• Parties: Sharon CLAYTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DELMARVA COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

447 F.Supp.3d 404

Sharon CLAYTON, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.DELMARVA COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. RDB-18-2511

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Signed March 23, 2020

Michael Kingston Amster, Anthony George Bizien, Zipin, Amster and Greenberg, LLC, Silver Spring, MD, Ramon Anthony Gras, Law Office of Ramon Gras, LLC, Easton, MD, for Plaintiffs.

Paul Burgin, Teresa D. Teare, Shawe Rosenthal LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard D. Bennet, United States District Judge

Plaintiffs Sharon Clayton, Vivian Thomas, Linda Carr, Consowillo Travers, and Jamez Justice (collectively, "Plaintiffs") have brought this action against Defendants Delmarva Community Services, Inc. and Santo Grande (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 203, et seq. ("FLSA"), the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-401, et seq. ("MWHL"), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-501, et seq. ("MWPCL"). Presently pending are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 40, 43.) The parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. The statute of limitations bars the Plaintiffs’ claims. Alternatively, their federal and state claims fail as a matter of law as their "sleep time" is not compensable under either federal or state law.

BACKGROUND

In ruling on the pending motions for summary judgment, the Court reviews the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 378, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) ; see also Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward , 711 F.3d 426, 433 (4th Cir. 2013). Defendant Delmarva Community Services, Inc. ("Delmarva") is a non-profit organization that provides services to people with developmental disabilities and other diagnoses, people in poverty, and senior citizens in the States of Maryland and Delaware. (Grande Dep. Tr. at 11-12, ECF No. 40-4.) Defendant Santo Grande ("Grande") has served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Delmarva for approximately the last ten years. (Id. at 10:12-15.) Delmarva's services include, but are not limited to, providing day services, community transportation, vocational services, poverty programs, and residential services. (Id. at 11-12).

One of the residential services Delmarva provides is the Developmental Disabilities Program, which serves elderly people and people with disabilities in residential homes. (Id. at 12-13; Clayton Dep. Tr. at 59:12-20, ECF No. 40-5.) Delmarva began this program in or about 1979 or 1980 in coordination with the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration, a state agency that provided Delmarva with funding. (Grande Dep. Tr. at 27:8-29:10, ECF No. 40-4.) One of the components of this program was the creation of Community Living Assistant positions with a sleep staff shift. (Id. at 26:21-27:7, 28:13-29:10.) Based on the guidance and funding provided by the State of Maryland, sleep staff were not compensated during the time they spent sleeping overnight in Delmarva's residential homes. (Id. at 26:21-27:7, 28:13-29:10, 34:19-35:7.) This was in compliance with the program established by the Maryland Developmental Disabilities Administration.

Plaintiffs Sharon Clayton ("Clayton"), Vivian Thomas ("Thomas"), Linda Carr ("Carr"), Consowillo Travers ("Travers"), and Jamez Justice ("Justice") were all previously employed as Community Living Assistants in Delmarva's Developmental Disabilities Program. (Grande Dep. Tr. at 12:21-13:2; Clayton Dep. Tr. at 103:8-19, 105:5-14, ECF No. 43-3; Thomas Dep. Tr. at 58:7-12, ECF No. 43-4; Carr Dep. Tr. at 83:8-20, ECF No. 43-5; Travers Dep. Tr. at 59:2-6, ECF No. 43-6; Justice Dep. Tr. at 43-44, ECF No. 43-7.)

As Community Living Assistants, Plaintiffs helped residents live an independent lifestyle in Delmarva's residential homes, assisting with individual care, supervision, daily living activities, and general safety of the residents. (Thomas Dep. Tr. at 67:19-68:2, ECF No. 40-6; Clayton Job Description, ECF No. 40-12; Thomas Job Description, ECF Nos. 40-13, 40-14; Travers Job Description, ECF Nos. 40-15, 40-16; Justice Job Description, ECF No. 40-17.) Plaintiffs also served as "sleep staff," staying overnight with Delmarva residents one week on and one week off, every other Thursday to Thursday in varying residential homes. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 105:21-109:7, ECF No. 43-3; Thomas Dep. Tr. at 100:12-14, 102:11-19, 104:17-109:17, ECF No. 43-4; Carr Dep. Tr. at 77:19-78:1, 79:21-80:18, ECF No. 43-5; Travers Dep. Tr. at 54:1-55:5, 106:20-107:13, 108:2-10, ECF No. 43-6; Justice Dep. Tr. at 68:2-7, ECF No. 43-7.) Typically, Plaintiffs’ work schedules were as follows:

Thursday:	3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Friday:	6:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.; 3:00 p.m. – 11:00 p.m.
Saturday:	7:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m.
Sunday:	7:00 a.m. – 11:00 p.m.
Monday:	6:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.; 3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Tuesday:	6:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.; 3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Wednesday:	6:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.; 3:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
Thursday:	6:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.

(Id. )

Plaintiffs all had some amount of down time while on the clock, during which time they did not have to complete any tasks and were able to watch television, use social media, make personal telephone calls, play games, read, or just relax. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 112:7-113:2, ECF No. 40-5; Thomas Dep. Tr. at 149:2-16, ECF No. 40-6; Carr Dep. Tr. at 114:5-9, 132:16-133:16, ECF No. 40-11; Travers Dep. Tr. at 111:7-17, ECF No. 40-9; Justice Dep. Tr. at 78:3-79:3, ECF No. 40-10.) For example, Plaintiff Clayton spent much of her shift watching television, sending text messages, or using social media. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 112:7-113:2, ECF No. 40-5.) Plaintiff Thomas engaged in personal activities during her working hours, such as making telephone calls, watching television, and using social media. (Thomas Dep. Tr. at 149:2-16, ECF No. 40-6.) Plaintiff Carr watched television, read, and played games on her phone. (Carr Dep. Tr. at 114:5-9, 132:16-133:16, ECF No. 40-11.) Plaintiff Travers also read during her down time. (Travers Dep. Tr. at 111:7-17, ECF No. 40-9.) Plaintiff Justice watched television, relaxed, or read magazines and books in his down time. (Justice Dep. Tr. at 78:3-79:3, ECF No. 40-10.) The time the Plaintiffs clocked out at the end of each workday until they clocked back in the next morning was time designated for sleep or other personal pursuits. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 106:12-17, 107:17-20, ECF No. 40-5; Thomas Dep Tr. at 105:7-109:13, ECF No. 40-6; Carr Dep. Tr. at 113:20-114:9, ECF No. 40-11; Travers Dep. Tr. at 108:2-17, 116:7-117:1, 119:5-14, 132:18-133:6, ECF No. 40-9; Justice Dep. Tr. at 68:2-6, ECF No. 40-10.)

Plaintiffs’ "workweek" began on Monday and ended on Sunday. (Defs.’ Interrogatory Responses at 11, ECF No. 43-16.) Plaintiffs clocked in and out of each work shift using Delmarva's "e-time system," whereby they would use the Delmarva residence's telephone to dial a given number and punch in their personal code. (Id. at 12-13.) When Plaintiffs were unable to clock in or out, or if they forgot to do so, they would contact their supervisor, Angela Major-Hill, who would ensure that Plaintiffs were properly compensated for time that was not recorded by the e-time system. (Id. )

When Plaintiffs "clocked out" at night, they slept at the Delmarva residence and were not permitted to leave. (Grande Dep. Tr. at 20:7-17, ECF No. 43-13; Major-Hill Dep. Tr. at 27:10-12, ECF No. 43-14.) During this "sleep time," Plaintiffs either slept, watched television, read, or engaged in other personal activities. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 106:12-17, 107:17-20, ECF No. 40-5; Thomas Dep Tr. at 105:7-109:13, ECF No. 40-6; Carr Dep. Tr. at 113:20-114:9, ECF No. 40-11; Travers Dep. Tr. at 108:2-17, 116:7-117:1, 119:5-14, 132:18-133:6, ECF No. 40-9; Justice Dep. Tr. at 68:2-6, ECF No. 40-10.) If they were awakened by a resident during this time, they were instructed to clock back in while attending to the situation in order to be paid for the time spent working. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 104:7-12, 105:15-20, 160:19-161:8, 162:19-164:3, ECF No. 40-5; Thomas Dep Tr. at 56:3-7, 74:9-16, 138:1-4, 158:4-6, ECF No. 40-6; Carr Dep. Tr. at 92:1-10, ECF No. 40-11; Travers Dep. Tr. at 106:3-19, 124:20-125:16, ECF No. 40-9; Justice Dep. Tr. at 77:5-10, ECF No. 40-10.) Plaintiffs were occasionally awakened to assist residents during the night. (Id. ; 3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 33, ECF No. 35.)

The Delmarva residences where Plaintiffs worked were typically single-family homes. (Thomas Dep. Tr. at 86:1-3, ECF No. 40-6; Carr Dep. Tr. at 106:20-107:7, ECF No. 40-11; Justice Dep. Tr. at 57:6-58:16, ECF No. 40-10.) Plaintiffs slept alone in rooms that were used by other sleep staff members during their off-duty weeks. (Defs.’ Admissions at 6, ECF No. 43-17.) Plaintiffs were not permitted to leave their belongings at the residences during their off-duty weeks. (Major-Hill Dep. Tr. at 28:2-6, ECF No. 43-14.)

While Plaintiffs had varying sleeping arrangements at the Delmarva residences, they all had their own rooms. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 113:3-8, ECF No. 40-5; Thomas Dep. Tr. at 79:20-80:7, 121:17-122:5, 122:21-123:9, 138:19-21, ECF No. 40-6; Carr Dep. Tr. at 100:10-101:7, 104:17-105:7, ECF No. 40-11; Travers Dep. Tr. at 121:6-14, 124:1-2, 125:17-126:7, 136:12-14, 139:8-10, 142:12-13, ECF No. 40-9; Justice Dep. Tr. at 70:21-71:2, 72:15-17, 100:17-101:2, ECF No. 40-10.) All of the Plaintiffs’ sleeping arrangements included a bed¹ and a lamp or lighting, and some included a television, closet, chair, and additional furniture. (Clayton Dep. Tr. at 114:14-115:15, 128:21-129:13, ECF No. 40-5; Thomas Dep....