Cunningham v. Mission Support All., LLC
| Decision Date | 22 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO: 4:18-CV-5060-RMP,: 4:18-CV-5060-RMP |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Washington |
| Parties | KEVIN CUNNINGHAM; JENA GERKEN; ERIC MATTOX; KEVIN MILLER; TOM PERKINS; DEVON REESE; CHAD RILEY; DON ROBERT; KELVIN SCHUMAN; SCOTT SIMARD; RICHARD STILES; SEAN STREGE and SEAN BARAJAS, Plaintiffs, v. MISSION SUPPORT ALLIANCE, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. |
Plaintiffs, a group of current and former Platoon Captains for the Hanford Fire Department ("Captains") employed by Defendant Mission Support Alliance, LLC, ("MSA") challenged MSA's decision to classify the Captains as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay rule. MSA argued that the Captains' primary duty was managing other firefighters and managing fire stations, which would exempt them from the FLSA's mandatory overtime pay rule because their primary duty was management. The Captains argued that none of the exemptions applied to them because their primary duty is as emergency responders, not managers. The parties also dispute the appropriate method of calculating any potential damages.
After reviewing the extensive briefing in this matter and considering the parties' arguments and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the Captains' primary duty is as emergency responders, and therefore, they are not exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay rule. Additionally, the Court concludes that the Captains should be paid overtime via the fluctuating workweek calculation method, that the Captains are entitled to liquidated damages, and that the statute of limitations for damages extends back two years. Therefore, the Court grants in part each party's motion for summary judgment and denies in part each party's motion for summary judgment.
The Captains are thirteen current and former Fire Platoon Captains employed by MSA to work at the Hanford Fire Department. ECF No. 1 at 4. The United States contracted with MSA to provide fire department services for the Department of Energy's Hanford Site outside of Richland, Washington. ECF No. 37-3 at 5. TheHanford Fire Department operates out of three fire stations, each tasked with responding to emergencies within or just outside of the Hanford Site. ECF No. 37-38 at 23.
The Hanford Fire Department utilizes a multi-tiered system of firefighter ranks that proceeds as follows from lowest ranked to highest: Fire Fighter, Lieutenant, Captain (also called Platoon Captain), Battalion Chief, and Chief. ECF No. 37-38 at 19. Between the three stations, four Captains (or Lieutenants acting as Captains) are always on duty. Id. at 37. The Captains work 48-hour shifts, or two days, and then get 96 hours, or four days, off, resulting in a regular workweek of either 48 or 72 hours. Id. at 26. Captains that worked prior to January 1, 2016, worked a schedule known as "Modified Detroit," in which the Captain would work a 24-hour shift, then receive a 24-hour rest period, work another 24-hour shift, receive another 24-hour rest period, work another 24-hour shift, and then receive 96 hours, or four days, of rest. Id. at 25. The result would be the same number of hours in a given workweek: the Captains would work either 48 hours or 72 hours. Id. at 40. Regardless of which schedule was used, when the Captains worked more than forty hours in a workweek, they were not compensated with time-and-one-half overtime pay because they were considered exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirement. ECF No. 37-40 at 4; ECF No. 39-3 at 8.
The Hanford Fire Department's stations are equipped with several different vehicles that may be used to respond to an emergency call. ECF No. 37-42 at 25-26. Any vehicle that is assigned to be used to respond to an emergency must be used to respond to that emergency, and a vehicle cannot leave unless all members, including a Captain, are onboard. ECF No. 37-42 at 21; ECF No. 37-38 at 66. A Captain cannot refuse to respond to a call if a call comes in for one of that Captain's vehicles; therefore, the Captain must stop whatever the Captain is currently doing, including sleeping, to respond to the call. ECF No. 37-42 at 52.
When Captains arrive on the scene of the emergency, they assume command of the emergency response if they are the most senior officer present. ECF No. 37-31 at 8. The types of emergencies to which the Captains might respond include fires, medical emergencies, rescue operations, and hazmat related incidents. ECF No. 37-35 at 6. Along with directing lower-ranked firefighters, the Captains handle hoses and engage in rescue operations as necessary for each emergency response. ECF No. 37-31 at 8. The Captains wear the same protective equipment as the other firefighters on scene. Id.
Based on the calculation of emergency response data between April of 2015 and December of 2018, the Captains spent less than 3% of their time on duty responding to emergency calls. ECF No. 40-4 at 5-6. When not responding to emergencies, the Captains are stationed at one of the three Hanford Fire Departmentstations. ECF No. 37-42 at 19. They ensure that the vehicles are stocked with supplies and that the vehicles' systems, such as the fire hoses, are operational. ECF No. 37-31 at 5. The Captains also complete the same training that other firefighters are expected to complete, which relates to the Captains' physical fitness and preparedness for responding to certain types of emergencies. ECF No. 37-38 at 54-59.
The Captains supervise the day-to-day activities of subordinate employees and delegate them tasks. ECF No. 39-25 at 4; ECF No. 39-19 at 9. The Captains initiate requests for station repairs and supplies. ECF No. 39-26 at 10. They prepare incident reports after responding to emergencies. ECF No. 39-22 at 8. The Captains also create pre-incident plans by touring certain facilities within the response range of the Hanford Fire Department "to provide information to responding personnel to help them safely and effectively manage emergencies with available resources." ECF No. 39-4 at 2. The Captains do not have the authority to discipline subordinate employees. ECF No. 37-42 at 83. They do not create or alter department policies. ECF No. 37-38 at 73. The Captains can make recommendations as to equipment purchases and supplies but they cannot make the decision to spend the Department's money. Id. at 74. They are not expected to write performance evaluations for subordinate officers. Id.
For their work, the Captains are paid a fixed weekly salary that does not change depending on the number of hours that the Captains are scheduled to work in a given workweek. ECF No. 39-3 at 22. The only exception is if the Captains worked unscheduled overtime, which is any work "outside the normal schedule of hours," they are paid "at the base straight time rate" for the unscheduled overtime. Id. at 23.
The Captains filed this complaint, claiming that they were denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA's overtime pay rule under 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). ECF No. 1. MSA argued that the Captains are exempt from overtime pay because they are highly compensated employees. ECF No. 14. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 36 & 38.
When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court considers each motion on its own merits. See Fair Housing Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). A court may grant summary judgment where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact" of a party's prima facie case, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists if sufficient evidence supports the claimed factual dispute, requiring "a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differingversions of the truth at trial." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). A key purpose of summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324.
The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") provides that employees who work more than forty hours in a workweek shall be paid "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed" for every hour worked over forty. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The Act provides many exemptions to the overtime pay rule and authorizes the Secretary of Labor to promulgate regulations creating and defining exemptions. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a). If an exemption applies to a certain employee, the overtime pay rule "shall not apply" to that employee. Id. An employer has the burden to prove that an exemption applies. Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2002).
Since the FLSA's enactment, its exemptions have been narrowly construed against the employers. See Mitchell v. Ky. Fin. Co., 359 U.S. 290, 295 (1959). However, the Supreme Court recently reversed this rule because the FLSA gives no "textual indication" that its exemptions should be narrowly construed. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142 (2018). "The narrow-construction principle relies on the flawed premise that the FLSA pursues itsremedial purpose at all costs." Id. Now, instead of a narrow construction, the exemptions must be given a "fair reading." Id.
Applying the FLSA's overtime rule to the Captains, there is no dispute between the parties that the Captains have worked over forty hours a week in the past and that they were not paid FLSA overtime compensation for those hours worked over forty. See ECF No. 37-7 at 2 (); ECF No. 37-6 at 13 (defining the...
To continue reading
Request your trial