Knecht v. City of Redwood City

• Citation: 683 F. Supp. 1307
• Decision Date: 29 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. C-86-5837-WWS.,C-86-5837-WWS.
• Parties: Tom KNECHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, a California municipal corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

683 F. Supp. 1307

Tom KNECHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, a California municipal corporation, Defendant.

No. C-86-5837-WWS.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

May 29, 1987.

Duane W. Reno, Susanne L. Clerc, Davis, Reno & Courtney, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Marie Corlett Blits, Michael L. Owens, Liebert, Cassidy & Frieson, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant.

ORDER

SCHWARZER, District Judge.

Introduction:

Plaintiffs are fourteen Fire Captains employed by the Fire Department of defendant Redwood City. Plaintiffs filed this action on October 10, 1986 seeking wages allegedly due them under the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA" or "the Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Defendant in its answer raised the affirmative defense that plaintiffs are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

The FLSA requires payment of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of a prescribed work week. The provisions of the FLSA governing the payment of overtime have applied to defendant since April 15, 1986. The Act does, however, exempt certain categories of employees, including those working in an executive capacity as defined in regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).

Defendant contends that plaintiffs qualify as exempt executive employees. Under the applicable regulation, an employee earning not less than $250 per week holds executive status if the employee is paid on a salary basis, directs the work of two or more employees, and has as his or her primary duty the management of the enterprise or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof. 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f).¹

Plaintiffs now move for partial summary judgment on the question whether they are "bona fide executive employees" and hence exempt under the Act. The sole issue raised by this motion is whether plaintiffs are paid on a salary basis. The parties do not dispute the evidentiary facts material to this question; the dispute is only over the conclusion to be drawn from those facts. Summary judgment under Fed.R. Civ.P. 56 is therefore appropriate. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 989 (9th Cir.1987); Trustees for Alaska Laborers-Construction Industry Health and Sec. Fund v. Ferrell, 812 F.2d 512, 515-16 (9th Cir.1987).

Factual Background:

The following facts are uncontradicted.

Fire Fighters and Fire Captains, known as line personnel, perform the manual tasks of fire suppression, emergency response, equipment maintenance and training. This work is the province of fire companies, each consisting of at least two Fire Fighters and one Fire Captain. Fire Captains act as working supervisors. In contrast, the Chief Officers of the Department perform managerial and administrative duties, in addition to commanding the operations at fires of any magnitude. These Chief Officers include one Fire Chief, one Deputy Chief and four Battalion Chiefs.

Line personnel are divided into three shifts or battalions. Every shift runs twenty-four hours, commencing at 8:00 a.m. The personnel on each shift are divided into four fire stations. One company is assigned to each fire station and shift. A Battalion Chief is in charge of each shift.

All Fire Department personnel account on time sheets for their hours. Line personnel must record on their time sheets all hours taken as vacation leave, sick leave or any other form of compensable or noncompensable leave. Fire Captains must account for each hour they work in order to be paid. Defendant also uses an hourly data base in processing the payroll for the Fire Department.

The Fire Chief and Assistant Chief work a regular forty-hour work week. All other personnel in the Fire Department work rotating twenty-four hour shifts during a twenty-four day work cycle. Their average work week consists of fifty-six hours. Line personnel work during the twenty-four day work cycle as follows:

X = twenty-four hour shift on O = twenty-four hour shift off XOXOXOX OOOOXOX OXOXOOO OOO

Both Fire Fighters and Fire Captains constitute a bargaining unit represented by San Mateo County Fire Fighters Union, Local 2400, International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO. The Fire Captains are subject to the Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA") between Local 2400 and defendant covering the period April 1, 1984 through the present time.

The MOA provides that both Fire Fighters and Fire Captains receive a set sum in compensation, referred to as a "salary", on a biweekly basis. The MOA further provides that line personnel are entitled to overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular pay rate or, upon request of the employee, an equivalent amount of compensatory time off for each tenth of any hour of work performed outside their normal duty hours.

Accordingly, Captains as well as Fire Fighters receive overtime on a tenth of an hour basis for all work done past the end of a shift. For example, if a Fire Captain must remain at a fire or perform administrative tasks past 8:00 a.m. at the end of a shift, he is entitled to receive overtime on a tenth of an hour basis.²

About five out of every six paychecks received by Captains contain overtime pay, although the amount of overtime pay earned varies between Captains and from pay period to pay period.

The hourly rate for each Fire Captain is calculated by dividing his biweekly salary by 112 hours, the average hours a Fire Captain works per two week period.

Line personnel who have completed a twenty-four hour shift and are called back to work are paid at the overtime rate for a minimum of three hours plus for any additional time worked on a tenth of an hour basis. Holiday pay, vacation leave and sick leave are also calculated on an hourly basis. Fire Captains accrue twenty-four hours of sick leave for each month worked. Sick leave is used on an hourly basis. Should a Captain exhaust his accrued sick leave, the amount of time he remains absent from work is calculated in terms of hours.

If a Fire Captain exhausts his sick leave but remains absent from work for any part of a day, his pay would be docked on an hourly basis. Similarly, if he is tardy for work or leaves early on personal business without arranging for a replacement, he would also be docked pay on an hourly basis. It is undisputed, however, that since the FLSA became applicable to defendant on April 15, 1986, no Fire Captains have been subject to a pay reduction for a noncompensable absence. Nonetheless, defendant concedes that a Fire Captain's paycheck is in fact subject to reduction in the event that he is absent from work for less than a full day and his sick leave, personal leave or vacation time have been exhausted or are inapplicable to the absence. (Babb Declaration)

The parties are in accord in characterizing the biweekly "salary" provided for in the MOA as compensation for working all scheduled shifts in the month. Fire Captains are paid to be available for emergency response during a specific number of hours. They receive overtime pay for working beyond those specified times and hours and could be docked pay if they are absent for any part of a shift. Throughout their twenty-four hour shifts, Fire Captains must remain with their companies. When the line personnel in a fire company are not working in the field, they must remain at the fire station, including during meals and throughout the night. In contrast, Battalion Chiefs, although required to remain in radio or telephone contact throughout their twenty-four hour shifts, have much more freedom of movement while on duty. For example, they may return to their homes at dinnertime.

Discussion:

In applying these facts to the law, the Court is guided by the principle that "exemptions from the Act's coverage are to be narrowly construed and applied to those situations `plainly and unmistakenly within its terms and spirit.' Hodgson v. Colonnades, Inc., 472 F.2d 42, 42 (5th Cir. 1973)." Shelton v. M.P. Ervin, 646 F.Supp. 1011, 1017 (M.D.Ga.1986). Moreover, the employer bears the burden of proving that its employees are exempt under the Act. Walling v. General Industries Company, 330 U.S. 545, 548-49, 67 S.Ct. 883, 884-85, 91 L.Ed. 1088 (1966); Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 196-97, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2229, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974); Clark v. J.M. Benson Co., Inc., 789 F.2d 282, 286 (4th Cir.1986). Finally, to be entitled to an exemption the employer must demonstrate that its employees meet every aspect of the definition for an exempt employee. Hodgson v. Barge, Waggoner & Sumner, Inc., 377 F.Supp. 842, 844 (M.D.Tenn.1972).

That the MOA between plaintiffs and defendant...