Hall v. Guardsmark, LLC
| Decision Date | 11 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 11-213 |
| Parties | PATRICIA HALL and WALTER MCCOMBS, Plaintiffs, v. GUARDSMARK, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiffs, Patricia Hall and Walter McCombs, bring this action alleging that Defendant, Guardsmark, LLC, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 (FLSA), by requiring them to work as security guards for more than 40 hours per week without compensating them for such additional time. They allege that they were required to record only their official shift times, rather than time actually worked; that they were required to be at their post prior to the start of their shift without being compensated for such time; that they were similarly required to remain at their post after their shift ended without being compensated for such time; and that they were required to wear a uniform that they had to clean at home, without being compensated for the time spent on this task.
Presently before the Court for resolution is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Hall worked as a full-time security guard on various shifts for Guardsmark from August5, 2008 to July 7, 2009. (Hall Dep. at 36; Hall Decl. ¶ 2.)2 She quit her employment with Guardsmark on July 7, 2009. She only worked for Guardsmark for approximately eleven months. (Hall Dep. at 36; Hall Dep. Civ. A. No. 11-115 at 161.3) McCombs was her immediate supervisor during her entire employment at Guardsmark. (Hall Dep. at 24, 36.)
McCombs began working as a security guard on various shifts for Guardsmark on October 22, 2007. He was promoted to a site supervisor on July 29, 2008. (McCombs Dep. at 60, 108.)4 Although McCombs worked thereafter as a supervisor at Guardsmark until July 2009, he only seeks recovery for the time he spent as a security guard until August 2008, or approximately nine months. (McCombs Decl. ¶ 2.)5 McCombs was terminated from his position as a site supervisor on July 20, 2009 because of unauthorized computer and internet use. (McCombs Dep. at 21, 27.)
Guardsmark disseminated common orders, regulations and instructions to all security officers in two manuals entitled "Guardsmark Means This to You" ("GMTTY")6 and "General Orders Regulations and Instructions for Uniformed Personnel" ("GOR&I").7 GMTTY contains the following provisions:
(Hall Dep. Ex. 1 at 12, 13, 15, 40.)
GOR&I includes the following policy:
Company policy requires that all security officers be on post ready to start their tours of duty at the assigned commencement time of their duty shifts. Unless specifically directed in writing by the Manager in Charge, do not report before your shift starts or stay after it ends, if properly relieved.
(Hall Dep. Ex. 2 at 22.) When they began working for Guardsmark, both Hall and McCombs received a copy of these policies. (Hall Dep. at 18, 37-38; McCombs Dep. at 66-67.)
Both Hall and McCombs signed an Employment Agreement, in which they agreed as follows:
(Hall Dep. Ex. 3 ¶¶ 2, 6; ECF No. 102 Ex. I ¶¶ 2, 6.)
Hall stated that, based upon the agreement she signed, she had to abide by GOR&I that it was Guardsmark's policy to compensate employees for all time worked; that she had to record daily on her Weekly Time Record (WTR) the exact times she started or completed work and sign this form weekly; that Guardsmark would rely on this record to pay her; and that regardless of how well-intentioned, reporting to the premises or facilities of a client prior to scheduled starting time or remaining after scheduled quitting time was expressly forbidden by Guardsmark. (Hall Dep. at 38-39.) She also stated that the agreement indicated that it could not be changed by anybody. (Hall Dep. at 97.)
In signed declarations,8 Plaintiffs state that Guardsmark maintained a common written policy that required all security officers to track their hours worked by entering their approved shift start and end times on a Daily Activity Report form; that Guardsmark maintained a common written policy that required all security officers to track their hours worked by entering "only the number of hours they were authorized to work" in a "true hours worked" box on the Daily Activity Report; that barring an express authorization of overtime work, all Guardsmark security officers regularly complied with these policies by preparing Daily Activity Reports that showed eight hours worked per shift; that Guardsmark maintained a common written policy thatrequired all security officers to complete a WTR form showing the total number of hours each security officer was authorized to work each week; that Guardsmark supervisors regularly complied with this policy by preparing WTRs that showed they worked eight hours per shift; and that Guardsmark maintained a common practice of paying all security officers on the basis of their assigned shifts (i.e., eight hours per shift) rather than on their actual work start and end times. (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 5-10; McCombs Decl. ¶¶ 5-10.)
Plaintiffs state that they worked under a common written policy that required all security officers to arrive early for work so that shift transitions would run smoothly and on time, posts would not experience a lapse in security during shift changes and Guardsmark could minimize overtime hours and wages charged to its clients; that they regularly arrived at work at least 15 minutes before their scheduled shift start time to perform pre-shift work that included receiving pass down instructions, checking equipment, meeting with supervisors, guarding, monitoring, patrolling, inspecting and surveilling; that Guardsmark knew they regularly arrived early because their supervisors regularly suffered and permitted them to perform this work, their supervisors saw them performing this work and regularly reviewed their time and pay records; and that Guardsmark did not effectively prevent them from performing "off-the-clock" pre-shift work it did not want performed, accurately track the amount of "off-the-clock" pre-shift work they actually performed or pay all wages they were owed for such work. (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 11-15; McCombs Decl. ¶¶ 11-15.)9
Similarly, Plaintiffs state that Guardsmark maintained a common written policy orpractice that prohibited all security officers from leaving their post before their approved shift end time so that all security officers would remain on duty throughout their entire shift, be available to provide pass down instructions to their relief workers and so posts would not experience a lapse in security during shift changes; that they regularly worked about 15 minutes past their scheduled shift end time to perform post-shift work that included providing pass down instructions, putting away equipment, reviewing and completing their daily logs and event report and confirming their next work assignment; that Guardsmark knew they regularly stayed at their posts after their authorized shift end-time because their supervisors regularly suffered and permitted them to perform this work, their supervisors saw them performing this work and regularly reviewed their time and pay records; and that Guardsmark did not effectively prevent them from performing "off-the-clock" post-shift work it did not want performed, accurately track the amount of "off-the-clock" pre-shift work they actually performed or pay all wages they were owed for such work. (Hall Decl. ¶¶ 17-21; McCombs Decl. ¶¶ 17-21.)
Finally, Plaintiffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial