Crabtree v. Volkert, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 December 2012
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION 11-0529-WS-B
• Parties: CHRIS CRABTREE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOLKERT, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

CHRIS CRABTREE, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.VOLKERT, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 11-0529-WS-B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date: December 7, 2012

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 32) and Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 28). Both Motions have been exhaustively briefed and are now ripe for disposition.¹

I. Nature of the Case.

Plaintiffs, Chris Crabtree and Lloyd Everhardt, brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), against defendant, Volkert, Inc. In theirAmended Complaint (doc. 4), plaintiffs allege that Volkert willfully violated the FLSA by (i) failing to pay them overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, and (ii) failing to maintain accurate records of plaintiffs' hours worked. Volkert denies any such violation, arguing that Crabtree and Everhardt were exempt from the FLSA's overtime provisions pursuant to the Act's administrative exemption. Plaintiff Crabtree also brings a separate FLSA retaliation cause of action, alleging that Volkert terminated his employment when he complained that he was being denied overtime compensation due under the FLSA. Volkert's position is that it discharged Crabtree for legitimate business reasons unrelated to Crabtree's internal complaints concerning uncompensated overtime.

Following the close of discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Volkert seeks an award of summary judgment on all claims and causes of action joined herein. Plaintiffs, by contrast, move for partial summary judgment, restricted to the issue of whether Volkert violated the salary basis of pay requirement for the FLSA's administrative exemption. (Doc. 38, at 1 n.1.) Extensive briefing was conducted, after which this action was transferred to the docket of the undersigned.

II. Relevant Facts.²

A. Defendant's Business and Plaintiffs' Job Duties.³

Volkert is an engineering, planning and environmental consultation firm. In this regard, Volkert performs certain consulting or contracting services for governmental agencies or departments on public works projects. Volkert employed Crabtree as a Real Estate Specialist or Senior Real Estate Specialist from July 6, 2010 through September 2, 2011. (Crabtree Decl. (doc. 37, Exh. L), ¶ 1.)⁴ Likewise, Volkert employed Everhardt as a Real Estate Specialist fromDecember 8, 2008 through August 1, 2011. (Everhardt Decl. (doc. 37, Exh. M), ¶ 1.) In broad-brush strokes, the duties of Crabtree and Everhardt "involved assisting agencies or departments in the acquisition of property for public work projects." (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 2; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 2.) As employees in Volkert's Real Estate Services Department, plaintiffs "assist[ed] the government agencies in complying with federal funding requirements relating to eminent domain that require public agencies to aquire [sic] real property fairly, expeditiously and cost effectively, and to ensure that displaced persons do not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of the public works." (Doc. 32, Exh. 21, at #9.) Plaintiffs' work was "divided into two general areas of activity: 'acquisition' of subject properties and 'relocation' of displaced persons and businesses." (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 6; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 4.)

Plaintiffs' evidence is that, in performing such relocation and acquisition functions, their day-to-day activities were guided by the Uniform Relocation Act ("URA") and accompanying manuals issued by Volkert's client agencies. (Id.) On the acquisition side, plaintiffs say, the URA and client manuals required the Real Estate Specialist "to complete a Fair Market Offer based on the property appraisal and to present this Fair Market Offer with the required paperwork to the displacee." (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 7; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 5.) In this regard, plaintiffs did not actually perform or assist in performing property appraisals, but instead received detailed appraisals in an already-completed state. (Crabtree Decl, ¶ 18; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs' role was to prepare a "Fair Market Offer" and present it to the property owner; however, plaintiffs "simply copied" that offer from the appraisal document, and lacked authority to deviate higher or lower than the amount specified in the appraisal. (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 19; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 16.) If the property owner rejected the Fair Market Offer, then plaintiffs' role in the negotiation ended, and they had no further involvement in recommending or implementing possible courses of action (i.e., adjustment of offer, preparation of condemnation proceedings, involvement as an expert witness in litigation, etc.). (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 20; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 17.)

On the relocation side, plaintiffs' role was more pronounced. The URA and agency manuals require that (i) comparable housing be identified (for use in computing a replacement housing benefit), (ii) a replacement housing benefit be calculated for the displaced person, (iii) advisory assistance be provided to displaced individuals seeking replacement housing or other URA benefits, (iv) actual replacement housing selected by the displaced person be inspected to verify that it is "decent, safe and sanitary," and (v) appropriate paperwork be completed to transfer relocation benefits to the displaced person upon purchase or lease of replacement housing. (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 8; Everhardt Decl., ¶ 6.)

Crabtree contends that, for the most part, his work for Volkert in 2010 and 2011 was confined to providing "advisory assistance" to displaced individuals, inasmuch as the acquisition work, along with much of the relocation work (including identification of comparable housing and computation of relocation benefits), had already been completed. (Crabtree Decl., ¶ 14.) This "advisory assistance" consisted to a large degree of Crabtree providing transportation services by driving displaced renters (many of whom lacked vehicles or other means of private transport) to the Section 8 office or to appointments to view replacement housing. (Id., ¶ 16.)Also, a large part of Crabtree's relocation work consisted of "performing inventories of the personal property of displaced renters ... by counting the number of rooms of furniture and looking on the schedule to determine the amount of the relocation benefit." (Id., ¶ 17.) Crabtree concedes, however, that there were tracts for which he identified comparable housing and calculated replacement housing benefits. (Id., ¶¶ 15, 22.) But even this work was largely routinized, as it consisted of merely compiling and sorting lists of comparable properties by square footage, number of bedrooms, etc. (Id., ¶ 22.)⁵ Looking at the "objective characteristics of the properties" on his lists, Crabtree contends, "it was usually obvious" what the most comparable property was, and if it was not, he "would bring the issue to the client's attention and ask the client what to do." (Id., ¶ 25.) Also, Crabtree had no latitude in fixing replacement housing benefits, which were a simple arithmetic calculation of the difference between the appraised value of the acquired property and the listing price of the comparable property. (Id., ¶ 26.) Occasionally, Crabtree would inspect the replacement property selected by the displaced owner to confirm that it was "decent, safe and sanitary" (a so-called "DSS inspection"); however, that process simply involved walking through the property and completing a preprinted form with standards and criteria supplied by the URA and the client. (Id., ¶ 28.) Crabtree also performed required paperwork (called the "relocation package") for the client's approval after the displaced person bought or leased replacement housing; however, his completion of this paperwork was "micro-managed" by an outside consultant. (Id., ¶¶ 29-30.) According to Crabtree, "[w]henever there was a discretionary decision to be made, I would ask the agency, Volkert's client, what it wanted to do, and I would follow the agency's discretion." (Id., ¶ 38.) Everhardt's account of his job duties and responsibilities was functionally similar to Crabtree's in all material respects. (Everhardt Decl., ¶¶ 11-28, 36.)

B. Defendant's Compensation Policies and Practices.⁶

When Volkert hired Everhardt and Crabtree in 2008 and 2010, respectively, Volkert officials completed hiring paperwork showing that each of them would be paid on an hourly basis. (Doc. 28, Exh. A, at 000799; Exh. B, at 001221.) Those same forms reflected that Everhardt would be compensated at an hourly rate of $30.00, and that Crabtree would be compensated at an hourly rate of $28.00. (Id.)⁷ Despite these notations on hiring forms, since at least 1994 Volkert has considered Real Estate Specialists to be salaried employees. (Harmening Dep., at 48-50.) In that regard, it is undisputed that Volkert generally paid its Real Estate Specialists and Senior Real Estate Specialists a fixed, predetermined amount of compensation each week, regardless of the number of hours actually worked. It is likewise undisputed that Crabtree and Everhardt worked more than 40 hours in certain (perhaps even numerous) work weeks, and were not compensated for those endeavors with overtime premium pay of 1.5 times their regular rate.

Although plaintiffs were paid a fixed salary, on four occasions in 2010 and 2011 (August 6, 2010, September 17, 2010, December 10, 2010, and July 22, 2011), Volkert made deductions from Crabtree's paycheck for partial-day absences, or otherwise paid him in increments of fewer than 8 hours per workday. (Doc. 28, Exh. G, at 002665, 002669; Exh. F, at 000827, 000828.) Volkert's Human Resources Supervisor, Holly Gibney, testified that these kinds of partial-day deductions occurred for ostensibly salaried, exempt employees such as Crabtree on more than a dozen occasions between 2008 and 2011. (Gibney Dep., at 57-76.) None of these deductions...