Lamon v. City of Shawnee, Kan., Civ. A. No. 88-4200-S.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1991
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 88-4200-S.
• Citation: 754 F. Supp. 1518
• Parties: Billy W. LAMON; Paul E. Pagacz; Ronald W. Ward; Donald Foltz; Michael G. McCoy; Larry Evans; John England; Mark W. Hein; Don B. Gamblin, Jr.; Franklin K. Sullivan; Mark A. Ashurst; Paul F. Arnold; Terry P. Lawson; Randy A. Peddicord; and Thomas F. Carney, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Kansas

754 F. Supp. 1518

Billy W. LAMON; Paul E. Pagacz; Ronald W. Ward; Donald Foltz; Michael G. McCoy; Larry Evans; John England; Mark W. Hein; Don B. Gamblin, Jr.; Franklin K. Sullivan; Mark A. Ashurst; Paul F. Arnold; Terry P. Lawson; Randy A. Peddicord; and Thomas F. Carney, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SHAWNEE, KANSAS, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 88-4200-S.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

January 4, 1991.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Les E. Diehl, Harold S. Youngentob, Goodell, Stratton, Edmonds & Palmer, Topeka, Kan., for plaintiffs.

Marvin E. Rainey, Marvin E. Rainey & Associates, Overland Park, Kan., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SAFFELS, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on motion of plaintiffs Billy W. Lamon, et al. for the award of damages. Also before the court is defendant's motion for a new trial or to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment; or in the alternative for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This is a case brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), and the Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hour laws, K.S.A. 44-1201 et seq. On October 22, 1990, a jury verdict for plaintiffs was entered on the issue of compensability of meal periods under the FLSA. The jury further found that defendant had established a 28-day work period which partially exempts defendant from paying overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times plaintiffs' regular hourly wages for hours worked from 160 to 171 per 28-day work period.

Plaintiffs' Motion for the Award of Damages

The remaining issue before the court is what amount of damages are owed to plaintiffs. Upon examination of the parties' memoranda, the court finds that no hearing is necessary to resolve the issue of damages. In its response to plaintiffs' "Statement of Damages," defendant continues to challenge the issue of liability for its failure to pay plaintiffs compensation for meal periods. The primary issue which defendant contests is whether meal periods are compensable under the FLSA when defendant has established a 28-day work period as found by the jury. Defendant argues that under the FLSA there is no requirement that plaintiffs be paid their rate of regular compensation for hours worked beyond 160 in a 28-day period. Defendant premises its argument on the fact that it has established a work period of 28 days, and the fact that defendant pays plaintiffs overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 171 hours in a 28-day period. Accordingly, defendant asserts that unless plaintiffs work 171 hours or more, the 11 hours between 160 and 171 are not compensable under the FLSA. Defendant further argues that its failure to compensate plaintiffs for these hours is not a violation of the overtime provisions of the FLSA.

The court rejects defendant's interpretation of the law. Initially, the court notes that the FLSA was adopted by Congress as remedial legislation. Consequently, a restrictive interpretation of the FLSA is contrary to congressional intent. Hodgson v. University Club Tower, Inc., 466 F.2d 745, 746 (10th Cir.1972) ("it must be liberally construed `to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with congressional direction'" Id. (quoting Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Assoc., 358 U.S. 207, 211, 79 S.Ct. 260, 264, 3 L.Ed.2d 243 (1959)). Furthermore, the court finds direction in regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor. As this court has stated before, the interpretation of an administrative agency charged with issuing regulations pursuant to a federal law has been held to be "entitled to great weight and the Court may properly resort to them for guidance." Wirtz v. Healy, 227 F.Supp. 123, 130 (N.D. Ill.1964). See also Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 164, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944).

In looking to the relevant regulatory provisions, the FLSA requires compensation for meal periods, notwithstanding the defendant's adoption of a 28-day work period. The relevant regulatory provision provides in pertinent part:

(b) Compensable hours of work generally include all of the time during which an employee is on duty on the employer's premises or at a prescribed workplace, as well as all other time during which the employee is suffered or permitted to work for the employer.

29 C.F.R. § 553.221. Thus, any time spent working is compensable. Further direction may be found as follows:

(b) If a public agency elects to use the section 7(k) exemption, the public agency may, in the case of law enforcement personnel, exclude meal time from hours worked on tours of duty of 24 hours or less, provided that the employee is completely relieved from duty during the meal period, and all the other tests in § 785.19 of this title are met. (emphasis added).

29 C.F.R. § 553.223. The jury specifically found that plaintiffs were not completely relieved of their duties during meal periods. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to compensation under the FLSA. The jury further found that defendant has established a 28-day work period; thus, the rate of compensation owed for these hours, although hours worked in excess of 40 per week, is at plaintiffs' regular hourly rate.¹ Consequently, defendant has failed to compensate plaintiffs for their meal periods as required by the FLSA.

The court finds that plaintiffs' method of calculating the actual damages suffered by the police officers in this case is correct. Therefore, the actual damages to be awarded in this case can be calculated by the number of hours each plaintiff has not been compensated for meal periods, multiplied by each plaintiff's regular hourly rate of pay. Accordingly, the court adopts plaintiffs' statement of actual damages totaling $90,614.37, as calculated by their accountant Susan E. Tucker.

Liquidated Damages

In addition to actual damages, plaintiffs seek the award of liquidated damages in a sum equal to the amount of actual damages. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b),² this court must award liquidated damages in addition to actual damages for violations of the FLSA. "The only instance where a court may exercise discretion in not awarding liquidated damages is when an employer shows that its action was in good faith and that it had reasonable grounds for believing the failure to pay overtime compensation was not a violation of the FLSA." Crenshaw v. Quarles Drilling Corp., 798 F.2d 1345, 1351 (10th Cir.1986). Thus, unless the City of Shawnee demonstrates that its actions were in good faith and that it had reasonable grounds for believing that its act or omission was not a violation of the Act, the court must award liquidated damages. The employer has the burden of demonstrating both elements. Doty v. Elias, 733 F.2d 720, 725-26 (10th Cir.1984). If the employer cannot convince the court of both of these elements, an award of liquidated damages is mandatory. EEOC v. Shelby County Gov't. Bd. of County Comm'rs., 707 F.Supp. 969, 987 (W.D.Tenn.1988) (quoting Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 567 F.2d 429 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086, 98 S.Ct. 1281, 55 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978)). Although the issue of defendant's "good faith" is subjective, whether an employer had reasonable grounds for its actions is judged by an objective standard. Marshall v. Brunner, 668 F.2d 748, 753 (3d Cir.1982).

Upon review of the record in this case, the court finds that defendant has not met its burden of showing that it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing that its failure to compensate police officers for their meal periods did not violate the Act. First, the court finds that defendant had been advised by its attorney in a letter dated November 11, 1985, that meal periods were compensable regardless whether the defendant established a 28-day work period pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 207(k). In fact, the letter stated:

It is our opinion that because the officer is subject to immediate call during his lunch period, that period is compensable whether the department selects 7(k) or not. The officer is not authorized to leave the City and must be ready to respond.

Evidence which defendant offers in support of its alleged good faith includes a memorandum from Police Chief Stump to Gary Montague dated January 9, 1986. In this memorandum, Police Chief Stump stated, "it is the Department's opinion that by establishing a (sic) `uninterrupted lunch break' and making every effort not to call the officer on his lunch break unless it is an emergency, this will surpass and meet the standards of the Fair Labor Standards Act." (Defendant's Exh. 411). However, in a memorandum from Major Hall to Police Chief Stump, dated January 17, 1986, Major Hall stated, "I also took the double precaution of specifying a ½ hour lunch which I specifically neglected to state was paid. This would allow us to claim the 8½ hour work day was actually only 8 hours if we excluded the lunch period." (Defendant's Exh. 413). This statement indicates that defendant anticipated paying plaintiffs only eight hours for an eight and one-half hour work day. Thus, the court is unpersuaded that defendant exercised good faith in electing not to pay plaintiffs for their meal periods.³

Defendant further argues that it had a reasonable ground for believing plaintiffs' meal periods were not compensable. Defendant bases this assertion on its conclusion that much confusion initially surrounded the recently enacted § 207(k) exemption for law enforcement officers. Defendant may be correct in this assertion. However, as stated by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sinclair v. Automobile Club of Oklahoma, Inc., 733 F.2d 726, 730 (10th Cir.1984) (citations omitted), "an employer's ignorance of the Act or its requirements is not a reasonable ground for believing that it was in compliance." Furthermore, in order for a court to exercise its discretion under 29 U.S.C. § 260, the employer must convince the court that it acted in "good faith and that he had reasonable...