Martin v. Coventry Fire Dist.
| Decision Date | 06 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1750,92-1750 |
| Parties | , 124 Lab.Cas. P 35,752, 1 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 247 Lynn MARTIN, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. COVENTRY FIRE DISTRICT, Defendant, Appellee. . Heard |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Paul L. Frieden, Atty., with whom Marshall J. Breger, Sol. of Labor, Monica Gallagher, Associate Sol., and William J. Stone, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, were on brief for plaintiff, appellant.
Gregory P. Piccirilli with whom Vincent J. Piccirilli and Piccirilli & Sciacca were on brief for defendant, appellee.
Before BREYER, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM, * Senior Circuit Judge, and BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.
The Coventry Fire District failed to pay some of its employees overtime pay as mandated by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207. The Secretary of Labor sued the Fire District. The district court awarded damages but denied the Secretary's request for an injunction prohibiting future violations. The Secretary appeals. She points out that the Act calculates ordinary employee overtime as time and one half for hours worked in a week in excess of 40. It calculates "public fire fighter" overtime specially, however, (reflecting their special working conditions) as time and one half for hours worked in excess of 212 hours in a consecutive 28-day period. 28 U.S.C. § 207(k). She says the district court, when calculating damages, wrongly used the special "fire fighter" rule. In her view, it should have used the ordinary employee rule instead. She adds that the court should have issued an injunction. We find her appeal without merit and affirm the district court.
1. Damages. The district court calculated the amount of "unpaid overtime compensation," 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), by subtracting what the statute defines as a fire fighter's normal working hours (212 hours per 28 days, which we simplify as 53 hours per week), see 29 U.S.C. § 207(k); 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.201(a), 553.230, from the total time each employee actually worked. The result (when multiplied by the overtime pay rate) was a total deficiency of about $10,000. The court doubled this amount in light of the statutory double damage requirement for all but "reasonable," "good faith" mistakes. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 260.
The Secretary argues that the court erred in subtracting (from total hours each employee worked) what the statute defines as a fire fighter's normal working hours (53 hours per week). See 29 U.S.C. § 207(k); 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.201(a), 553.230. Rather, she says, the court should have subtracted what the statute defines as an ordinary employee's normal working hours (40 hours per week). See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). The result would have been far more "overtime" hours, a total deficiency of $63,000, and a total "doubled" deficiency of about $126,000, not $20,000.
The Secretary concedes that Coventry is a fire department and that the law applicable to fire departments initially required it to pay $10,000 (based on 53 hour weeks), not $63,000 (based on 40 hour weeks), in overtime payments. But, she argues, the special provision for fire departments is written literally as an exemption from the general overtime rule. And, the Secretary adds, we must read this statutory exemption literally. Thus, although a fire department should generally pay overtime by following the special fire department "53 hour" rule, if it fails to pay overtime and violates the special fire department rule, this special fire department rule no longer applies; the general "40 hour" rule instead applies; and we must calculate damages on the basis of the general "40 hour" rule, not the special fire department "53 hour" rule.
It is easier to understand the Secretary's argument if one examines the language of the statute itself. The general rule, contained in section 207(a), provides:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees ... for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation [for the extra hours] ... at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate....
29 U.S.C. § 207(a). The special "fire department" rule, contained in section 207(k), provides:
No public agency shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a) of this section with respect to the employment of any employee in fire protection activities ... if ... in a work period of 28 consecutive days the employee receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed .. hours [i.e., an average of 53 hours per week] ... compensation at the rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate....
29 U.S.C. § 207(k) (emphasis added); see also 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.201(a), 553.230. The Secretary argues that, since the Fire District's employees did not receive the time and a half that subsection (k) requires, subsection (k) is inapplicable; hence subsection (a) applies; and subsection (a) requires time and a half after 40 hours, not after (roughly speaking) 53 hours.
Like the district court, we find this argument unconvincing. For one thing, it produces an odd result. The statute's damages provisions make clear that an employer who fails to pay statutorily required overtime 1) must simply pay the overtime owed (if the violation is merely technical and in good faith), or 2) must pay twice that amount (where the violation is not in good faith), or 3) must suffer more serious penalties (where the violation is wilful). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 216, 260. The Secretary's interpretation would make special industry employers such as fire departments (whose normal work week is defined as, say, 53, rather than 40, hours) pay more than the overtime owed (in the case of technical "good faith" violations) and more than twice the overtime owed (in the case of other violations). There is no obvious explanation for assessing a kind of penalty against special industry employers where there is no particular reason for any penalty (in the case, say, of a technical "good faith" violation), or for assessing an especially heavy penalty where there is no reason to make the penalty especially severe.
For another thing, we have found no indication in the legislative history of the Fair Labor Standards Act that Congress intended to impose any such special damages or special penalty rules. To the contrary, that history shows only that Congress intended to distinguish fire fighters from other employees in respect to the number of hours that constitute the normal working week. The Senate Report on the bill, states, for example,
Congress established ... special provisions in recognition of the special needs of governments in the area of public safety and the unusually long hours that public safety employees must spend on duty. Section 7(k) was intended to alleviate the impact of the FLSA on the fire protection and law enforcement activities of state and local government by providing for work periods of up to 28 days (instead of the usual seven-day workweek) [and] establishing somewhat higher ceilings on the maximum number of hours which could be worked before overtime compensation had to be paid....
S.Rep. No. 99-159, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1985), reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 651, 653.
Further, despite the fact that the language at issue here has been operative since 1985, see Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 555-56, 105 S.Ct. 1005, 1019-1020, 83 L.Ed.2d 1016 (1985) (), in none of the cases we encountered has a court ever adopted the linguistic interpretation the Secretary of Labor here seeks. See Atlanta Professional Firefighters Union, Local 134 v. Atlanta, 920 F.2d 800, 802-03, 806 (11th Cir.1991); Kohlheim v. Glynn County, 915 F.2d 1473, 1476-77, 1481 (11th Cir.1990); Craven v. City of Minot, 730 F.Supp. 1511, 1513 (D.N.D.1989); International Ass'n. of Firefighters, Local 349 v. City of Rome, 682 F.Supp. 522, 526, 531 (N.D.Ga.1988); Jacksonville Professional Fire Fighters Ass'n, Local 2961 v. City of Jacksonville, 685 F.Supp. 513, 527 (E.D.N.C.1987).
Finally, the language of the statute, taken literally, does not require the result for which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chao v. Virginia Dept. of Transp.
...or substantially similar tests. See, e.g., Reich v. Petroleum Sales, Inc., 30 F.3d 654, 657 (6th Cir.1994); Martin v. Coventry Fire Dist., 981 F.2d 1358, 1362 (1st Cir.1992); Brock v. Big Bear Market No. 3, 825 F.2d 1381, 1383 (9th Cir.1987); Marshall v. Van Matre, 634 F.2d 1115, 1117-18 (8......
-
Olivas v. C & S Oilfield Servs., LLC
...of repetitive violations, and the absence of bad faith." Metzler v. IBP, Inc., 127 F.3d at 963-64 (citing Martin v. Coventry Fire Dist., 981 F.2d 1358, 1362 (1st Cir. 1992) ).LAW REGARDING COLLECTIVE ACTIONS UNDER FLSA § 216(b) Under FLSA § 216(b), "any one or more employees" may bring an a......
-
Landry v. Swire Oilfield Servs.
...of repetitive violations, and the absence of bad faith." Metzler v. IBP, Inc., 127 F.3d at 963–64 (citing Martin v. Coventry Fire Dist., 981 F.2d 1358, 1362 (1st Cir. 1992) ).LAW REGARDING COLLECTIVE ACTIONS UNDER FLSA § 216(b) 18. Under FLSA § 216(b), "any one or more employees" may bring ......
-
Robertson v. Bd. of County Com'Rs County of Morgan
...280, 284 (5th Cir.1998)("The State is not to be punished for doing more than the statute requires"). Accord Martin v. Coventry Fire Dist., 981 F.2d 1358, 1361-62 (1st Cir.1992), declined to follow on other grounds, Chessin v. Keystone Resort Mgmt., Inc., 184 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir.1999).......
-
For Whom Does the Clock Tick Public Employers' Liability for Overtime Compensation Under Federal Law
...553, rather than those found at 29 C.F.R. § 785, are used to determine compensable hours of work. [FN16]. Martin v. Coventry Fire Dist., 981 F.2d 1358, 1361 (1st Cir.1992). [FN17]. Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, Ala., 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir.1992) (citing Donovan v. United Video, Inc., 725 F.2......