Hartman v. Arlington County, Va., Civ. A. No. 88-1418-A.

Decision Date01 May 1989
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 88-1418-A.
Citation720 F. Supp. 1227
PartiesWilliam HARTMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

Quentin R. Corrie, Falls Church, Va., for plaintiffs.

Peter H. Maier, Arlington, Va., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HILTON, District Judge.

This matter came before the court on defendant Arlington County's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, thirty-four current or former employees of the Arlington County, Virginia Fire Department, brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. The employees seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, claiming they are entitled to premium overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of the statutory maximum during the time they held the rank of Fire Shift Commander. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(k). Arlington County denies any liability to the employees because Fire Shift Commanders are exempt from the FLSA overtime requirements under the Act's executive capacity exemption. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).

Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides in section 541.1(f) that employees shall be deemed to be employed in an executive capacity if: (1) they are compensated on a salary basis at a rate not less than $250 per week; (2) their primary duty consists of managing the enterprise in which they are employed or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; and (3) they customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees.

The Court must determine if there are any material facts in dispute. Bald assertions of a factual dispute will not suffice. There must be sufficient evidence on which a jury could find for the plaintiffs. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2512, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Addressing the three criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f) in reverse order, there is no dispute that the third element of the executive exemption has been met. The Fire Shift Commander is generally the highest ranking County official at the fire station, and he or she directs the activity of two or more firefighters on the shift.

Regarding the second prong, plaintiffs contend that there is a genuine issue for trial concerning the "management" nature of the Fire Shift Commander duties. They argue that the Battalion Chief is the executive responsible for fire station management, not the Fire Shift Commander. Such an assertion, however, does not create a dispute of material facts.

Section 541.102(b) lists examples of work considered to be "management," such as: interviewing, selecting and training employees; directing work; apportioning work among employees, handling complaints and grievances, selecting tools to be used, and providing for safety. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102(b). The regulations go on to say that management is considered a primary duty when it entails over 50% of the employee's time. However, time is not the sole factor, and management may still be a primary duty if other factors support this conclusion. These additional factors include: the relative importance of the managerial duties with respect to non-exempt duties; the frequency with which the employee exercises discretion; and the relationship between the manager's salary and the wages paid his subordinates. 29 C.F.R. § 541.103.

In 1986, the County had its employees complete Job Information Questionnaires (JIQs) to aid in the classification and creation of job descriptions. The plaintiffs completed the questionnaires along with other employees and indicated that their responses were accurate to the best of their ability. On the representative JIQs submitted as part of the record, plaintiffs estimated that they spend approximately five hours per day supervising fire and rescue emergencies as well as non-emergency public service calls; two to three hours per day engaged in administrative tasks such as record keeping, report writing and ordering supplies; three hours providing company training drills, maintenance of equipment, and upkeep of building and grounds; one hour supervising the daily shift meeting and assigning tasks; one hour assisting citizens with diverse problems; and one to two hours supervising the physical training of the company. Managerial-type responsibilities clearly comprise over 50% of the Fire Shift Commanders' work day. While plaintiffs do perform a variety of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Thomas v. County of Fairfax, Va.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • February 27, 1991
    ...§ 541.118(b), which provides that "additional compensation besides the salary is not inconsistent with the salary basis of payment," and the Hartman and Fire Fighters Local 2141 decisions, which state that overtime paid at an hourly rate "is expressly permitted by § 541.118(b)." See 720 F.S......
  • Quirk v. Baltimore County, Md.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 18, 1995
    ...interpreted this to mean that overtime does not defeat an otherwise authorized exemption for a salaried employee. Hartman v. Arlington County, 720 F.Supp. 1227 (E.D.Va.1989), aff'd. on reasoning of lower court, 903 F.2d 290 (4th The pay scheme here is similar to that in Simmons v. City of F......
  • West v. Anne Arundel County, Md.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • February 18, 1998
    ...defeat the salary basis of plaintiffs' employment. York v. City of Wichita Falls, 944 F.2d 236, 242 (5th Cir.1991); Hartman v. Arlington Cty., 720 F.Supp. 1227 (E.D.Va.1989), aff'd on reasoning of lower court, 903 F.2d 290 (4th Plaintiffs claim that Captains are "subject to" two reductions ......
  • Sewell Plastics, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • August 25, 1989
    ... ... 29, 1987, defendants moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 for summary judgment. Docket No. 95. On ... Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 343 n. 13, 102 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT