HCA-Healthone LLC v. Colo. Dep't of Labor & Employment

• Decision Date: 26 March 2020
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals No. 19CA0059
• Citation: 474 P.3d 162
• Parties: HCA-HEALTHONE LLC, d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND STATISTICS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals

474 P.3d 162

HCA-HEALTHONE LLC, d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND STATISTICS, Defendant-Appellee.

Court of Appeals No. 19CA0059

Colorado Court of Appeals, Division I.

Announced March 26, 2020

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Lisa Hogan, Carrie E. Johnson, Martine T. Wells, Craig M. Finger, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Evan P. Brennan, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee

Polsinelli PC, Gerald Niederman, Bennett Cohen, Gillian Bidgood, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Colorado Hospital Association

Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO

¶ 1 Plaintiff, HCA HealthONE LLC, d/b/a North Suburban Medical Center (the Hospital), appeals the district court's order affirming the final agency decision holding that the Hospital owed wages and penalties to a former employee for work she performed during designated meal periods. The decision, issued by defendant, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Labor Standards and Statistics (the Division), determined that those periods were compensable under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order Number 35, 7 Code Colo. Regs. 1103-1(7) (effective Jan. 1, 2020-Mar. 16, 2020), https://perma.cc/GA3G-4ZUP (MWO).

¶ 2 Addressing a novel question, we hold that the MWO is not ambiguous and its plain language provides that a meal period is compensable unless it is both "uninterrupted" and "duty free." Because the Division correctly interpreted the MWO, and because the record supports the Division's decision that the employee here had duties during her meal periods (with the exception of one timeframe), we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I. Factual Background

¶ 3 The underlying agency action was initiated by the former employee, the claimant and nominal party here, Lynne Witt.¹

A. Witt's Job Responsibilities

¶ 4 Witt worked twelve-hour shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the Hospital's freestanding emergency room laboratory from 2013 to 2016. As a laboratory medical technologist, she ran tests on patient specimens, maintained analyzers, ran quality control, logged in specimens, and conveyed critical results to caregivers.

¶ 5 The lab was staffed around the clock, seven days a week, so that tests for acutely ill patients could be performed without delay. During her shifts, the small team at the Hospital relied on Witt "for everything regarding the laboratory; there [was] no other person to go to."

B. Meal Periods

¶ 6 In accordance with the Hospital's policy, Witt took thirty-minute meal periods. The duties and restrictions she had during those periods led to her wage complaint.

1. The Hospital's Meal Period Policy

¶ 7 The Hospital's policy provided as follows:

Patient care needs permitting, meal periods must be at least thirty (30) uninterrupted minutes in duration and are scheduled for employees working five (5) or more consecutive hours. Employees must be relieved of all work duties during the meal period. ... Meal period interruptions that are considered "de minimis " will not be considered compensable time ....

....

Meal periods are considered unpaid time and must be recorded in the timekeeping system. Employees will not be compensated for meal periods unless the meal is interrupted to perform work-related duties. If a non-exempt employee is interrupted, or misses a meal period to perform work, the employee will be paid for the entire scheduled meal period. Interruptions which are considered de minimis do not require full meal period payment. With prior management approval, an employee may consume an "on duty meal" while performing duties outside of clinical or patient care areas. The "on duty meal" time is paid.

¶ 8 To receive payment for missed or interrupted meals, employees were instructed to clock in, notify their manager, and/or submit a timekeeping adjustment form. Witt used the timekeeping system on occasion to obtain compensation for interrupted meal periods. None of those occasions is in dispute here.

2. Use of Witt's Meal Periods

¶ 9 During her meal period, Witt could generally step out of the lab, use the breakroom, watch TV, read, make personal calls, eat, and rest. As she stated in her wage complaint, however, she was the only laboratory technologist on duty during her shifts. So, Witt was "basically ‘on call’ " during meal periods. This meant she was required to (1) carry the lab phone and respond to all lab calls; (2) leave a sign at the lab instructing nurses to call her to return to work when they would drop off a specimen; and (3) answer and handle routine business calls for the lab, including answering questions from doctors, nurses, and paramedics about lab tests, equipment, and instruments.

¶ 10 Additionally, to ensure that Witt could promptly respond to these tasks, and because the lab phone she carried did not work outside of the building, she was not allowed the leave the Hospital facility during her meal periods. Consequently, she could not pursue personal activities like running errands, going for a walk, or simply sitting at the picnic table just outside the facility.

II. Procedural History

A. Agency Action

1. Witt's Wage Complaint

¶ 11 Witt filed a wage complaint with the Division on October 14, 2015, pursuant to section 8-4-111, C.R.S. 2019, seeking payment from the Hospital for all meal periods for which she had not been compensated.

¶ 12 Witt contended she was "on call" during her meal periods. She said that Hospital management "insist[ed]" that she clock out for meals and clock back in when she is interrupted. But, because clocking back in led to overtime pay, and the Hospital "[did] not want to pay" for overtime, managers "require[d]" her to try to take another meal break later in the shift. According to Witt, that was not practical because it would have required taking a meal break as much as eight to ten hours after her shift began. Witt also explained that she "did not want to give up her lunch break" because

I'm very hungry by that point; it is my one meal in the whole 12 and a half hours and I need to eat that meal even if that means gulp it down.

So I did not ... if [an interruption] was something I could handle in, you know, 1 to 15 minutes then I was not going to clock back in to do that because I need to eat my food, otherwise my hot food is going down the kitchen sink or in the garbage can and that's my meal for the day. So I was not wanting to give up that food break. It's not a matter of just sitting in the breakroom and watching TV[,] it's a matter of putting food in your stomach so you don't faint.

¶ 13 Witt further alleged that her managers had "threatened" her to stop incurring overtime pay. According to Witt, her supervisor told her that the Hospital's meal period policy did not permit compensation for minor interruptions, and that she must stop clocking in when they occurred — that is, she must clock in again only to conduct lab testing.

2. The Hospital's Response

¶ 14 After Witt filed her complaint with the Division, the Hospital worked with her to address her concerns. By the end of 2015, the hospital implemented a new policy: Witt was no longer required to carry a phone or respond to non-emergency calls during her meal periods. Instead, a charge nurse would handle the phone and not interrupt her meal periods absent a "life critical emergency." After this change, Witt believed the meal periods were "fair." Hence, her wage claim covered only meal periods between "October of '13 to December 30th of '15 when they changed the policy."

¶ 15 The Division notified the Hospital of Witt's claim in writing on January 28, 2016, solicited information for the investigation, and informed the Hospital that the notice served as a written demand for wages under section 8-4-111(5). After receiving an extension of time, the Hospital responded on February 25, 2016.

¶ 16 Among other things, the Hospital asserted that "while it has no reason to believe that Ms. Witt was not properly compensated," it had agreed to compensate her for "the meal periods she alleges that she took (i.e., was not paid for) and that she alleges were interrupted for pay periods ending 11/1/13 through 2/13/16 to satisfy any concerns on this issue." "[T]o fully resolve this matter," the Hospital paid Witt for all uncompensated meal periods in that timeframe, which totaled 136.

3. The Citation

¶ 17 The Division's compliance investigator issued a "Notice of Determination and Enclosed Citation" (Citation) on December 14, 2016. After quoting the MWO, the Citation (1) credited evidence that Witt was "regularly not paid for ‘on duty’ meal breaks" and had to "remain on call" during the relevant meal period; (2) found that the Hospital violated the MWO by not compensating her for all such periods; and (3) concluded that she "should have been compensated for all ‘on-duty’ meal breaks, whether she was interrupted or not." The Citation applied to meal periods through February 13, 2016.

¶ 18 The Citation also determined that the Hospital had paid all wages owed by the time of the Citation. Yet, because the Hospital had not paid those wages within fourteen days of the written demand, the Citation advised the Hospital that it was required by statute to pay a penalty to Witt. The compliance investigator calculated this penalty to total $4210, but she exercised the Division's statutorily granted discretion to reduce the penalty by 50 percent (the maximum amount) because the Hospital had paid Witt the wages due before the Citation.

4. The Hearing and The Decision

¶ 19 The Hospital appealed the Citation through the administrative process, asserting that the Division had misinterpreted the MWO and had applied an unwritten rule in violation of the State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), §§ 24-4-101 to - 108, C.R.S. 2019. A Division hearing officer held a hearing, at which Witt testified as well as the...