Franks v. Oklahoma State Industries, 93-7020
| Decision Date | 18 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-7020,93-7020 |
| Citation | 7 F.3d 971 |
| Parties | 126 Lab.Cas. P 33,037, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1109 Alton C. FRANKS, Joseph Osborne, Michael Tidwell, Terry Lee Steward, John Timko, Phillip Sparks, James Vaughn, Frederick Giles, Lance Foster, Robert Mohundro, Jesse Thomas, Chester Lyons, Billy Ray Walters, Harold Huntley, Robert Schneider, Timothy Clark, Jerry Hallmark, Kelvin Moore, Delfino Porras, Archie Rose, Darrell Allen, George Wright Smith, John Tarapen, Ed Blaskovic, James Claborn, Wesley Edwards, John McPhail, T.L. Rhine, Kenneth Burns, Stephen Jones, Rickey Wyatt, Arthur Brown, Wayne Easter, James Pope, Larry Butcher, Randall Swanson, Justin Samuel, Jackie Parret, Charles Peters, Jack Henry, Robert Deal, Billy Thomas, Larry Ned, Paul Quick, Andrew Barboza, Tyrone Williams, Mark Chester, Frank McQueen, Elza Nash, Stephen Chronister, Marvin Morris, Paul Sanders, Robert Eugene King, Elvin Fagans, Gilbert Payne, David Speaks, Calvin Barnett, James Wallace Wolfe, Dennis Milligan, Ronnie McGowan, Virgel Miles, Jerry Lee Stiles, Duane Cronic, representative party plaintiffs on behalf of all other inmates employed or formerly employed by Oklahoma State Industry, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OKLAHOMA STATE INDUSTRIES; Max Newberry, Administrator; Gary D. Maynard, former Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Larry Fields, Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections; Jim Westbrook, Industry Coordinator; Danny Wilson, Industry Manager; Paul Ridgway, Industry Manager; M.C. Ridgeway, Industry Manager; Don Pope, Industry Manager; Ron Jackson, Industry Manager; Richard Hall, Industry Manager; Betty Ward, Industry Manager; Jim Dodd, Industry Manager; Roy Beason, Industry Manager; Bill Jock, Industry Manager; Leroy Bond, Industry Coordinator; Mike Stroll, Industry Manager; John Hammer, Industry Manager; Sharon Schaffer, Industry Manager; Bill Carpenter, Industry Manager; Roger Glenn, Industry Manager; Les Guttert, Supt. I; Fidel Lujan, Industry Manager; Laura Webb, Industry Manager; Nanette Holt, Indu |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Alton C. Franks, et al., pro se, on the brief.
Before McKAY, BARRETT and SETH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Alton C. Franks, et al., (Plaintiffs), appearing pro se, appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint wherein they sought a decree directing the Oklahoma State Industries, a division of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, to tender to them minimum wages alleged to be due pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, back wages and damages. The district court, in a well-reasoned order, (Vol. I, Tab 5), dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that Congress did not intend to extend the FLSA's definition of "employee," 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(2)(C), to inmates working in prison. We agree that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The district court observed that although Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994 (10th Cir.1991) did not deal with the minimum wage standard of the FLSA as applied to prison labor, it did hold that a federal prison inmate was not an "employee" under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court held:
... We conclude that plaintiff is not an "employee" under either Title VII or the ADEA because his relationship with the Bureau of Prisons, and therefore, with the defendants, arises out of his status as an inmate, not an employee. Although his relationship with defendants may contain some elements commonly present in an employment relationship, it arises Prisoner Not Protected From Racial Job Bias, 2 Empl.Proc.Guide (CCH) p 6865, at 7009 (April 18, 1986) (EEOC Decision No. 86-7).
We believe that the same rationale applies in the instant case.
In Ingram v. Papalia, 804 F.2d 595, 596 (10th Cir.1986), we held that an inmate has no right to a job in the prison or to any particular job assignment, but that prison officials cannot discriminate against an inmate based upon his age, race or handicap.
In Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir.1991), Judge Trott reasoned that the FLSA's minimum wage protection was not intended by Congress to extend to felons serving time in prison. Judge Nelson dissented. Judge Rymer concurred but expressly refused to reach the issue. Judge Trott opined:
... Not a word can be found anywhere in the relevant statutes or authorities indicating an intent by Congress to include such a distinctive class of "workers" [convicted murderers, rapists, burglars, armed robbers, swindlers, thieves, and the like] in the FLSA ... [it is] singularly unconvincing ... that the statutory scheme's failure to include "prisoners" on ... "an extensive list" of workers who are excepted expressly from FLSA coverage provides somehow a rationale to bring them within the statute's mandate.... It is equally plausible, indeed more so, that in view of the manifest purpose of Congress in enacting the FLSA, it did not cross any member's mind--even for a moment--that felons serving hard time in prison and working in the process would be covered by this economic protection.
See also: Miller v. Dukakis, 961 F.2d 7 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 666, 121 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. King
...the Act's mandates do not apply. Harker, 990 F.2d at 133 (citations omitted) (prisoners not employees under FLSA); Franks v. Oklahoma State Indust., 7 F.3d 971 (10th Cir.1993) (same); Vanskike v. Peters, 974 F.2d 806 (7th Cir.1992) (same), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 928, 113 S.Ct. 1303, 122 L.E......
- Roeder v. Directv, Inc.
-
Burrell v. Lackawanna Recycling Ctr.
... ... state minimum wage. ( Id ... ¶¶ 228-232.) In ... Count V, ... See Gambetta v. Prison Rehabilitative Industries, ... 112 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (11th Cir. 1997); ... 1392-98 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc); Franks v. Oklahoma ... State Indus., 7 F.3d 971, 972 (10th ... ...
-
Villarreal v. Woodham
...v. Minnesota, 30 F.3d 976, 980 (8th Cir.1994); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1392-98 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc); Franks v. Oklahoma State Indus., 7 F.3d 971, 972 (10th Cir.1993); Harker v. State Use Indus., 990 F.2d 131, 133 (4th Cir.1993); Miller v. Dukakis, 961 F.2d 7, 8-9 (1st Cir.1992);......