Owens v. City of Malden
| Decision Date | 26 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11835-WGY |
| Parties | Jack OWENS, Jeffrey Drees, Katelyn Murphy, Patrick Manolian, Scott Mann, and Sean Hussey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MALDEN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Joseph A. Padolsky, Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.
John J. Clifford, David K. Kouroyen, Clifford & Kenny, LLP, Pembroke, MA, for Defendant.
YOUNG, D.J.2
Police officers in the City of Maiden (collectively, the "Plaintiffs" or "Officers") initiated this putative class action against the City of Maiden (the "City") to recover wages for performing paid detail work for both the City and for third parties. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act (the "Wage Act"), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148, and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 - 219.
On August 28, 2019, Officers Jack Owens, Jeffrey Drees, Katelyn Murphy, Patrick Manolian, Scott Mann, and Sean Hussey (collectively, the "Named Plaintiffs") filed a class-action complaint in this Court against the City. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On November 27, 2019, the Named Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 8.
The amended complaint alleges a violation of the FLSA in count I, see id. ¶¶ 45, 46, (the "FLSA claim") and the Wage Act in count II, see id. ¶¶ 47, 48, (the "Wage Act claim"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the City violated their rights by unlawfully deducting an administrative fee of ten percent from their respective wages for the provision of police detail work. See id. ¶¶ 46, 48.
The docket in this matter contains 110 formal notices, see Formal Notices Filing Consent Sue, ECF Nos. 34-143, filed on August 21, 2020, and a further three formal notices, Formal Notices Filing Consent Sue, ECF Nos. 187-189, filed on April 15, 2021 (collectively, the "Notices"). The Notices are filed on behalf of "current or former employee[s] of the Maiden Police Department, represented for collective bargaining purposes by either the Maiden Police Patrolmen's Association or the Maiden Police Superior's association" (collectively, the "Opt-In Plaintiffs"). See, e.g., John A. Delaney's Consent Opt In Plaintiff ("Opt-In Sample Delaney"), ECF No. 143.3 The Notices reference the Plaintiffs’ Wage Act and FSLA claims. See, e.g., id.
At a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on February 22, 2021, the Court certified a class in relation to the Plaintiffs’ Wage Act and FLSA claims. See Tr. Zoom Hr'g Summ. J. & Final Pretrial ("Tr. Summ. J.") 6:17, ECF No. 198.
A five-day jury-waived trial was held remotely on the Court's Zoom platform between May 5, 2021 and May 11, 2021 (the "trial"), during which the parties presented their arguments and examined several witnesses. See Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF Nos. 229-235, 243-44. The Court heard evidence from Richard Howard, former mayor of the City of Maiden, on May 5, 2021 ("day one" of the trial), see id., ECF No. 230; Gary Christensen, the current mayor of the City of Maiden, on day one and on May 6, 2021 ("day two" of the trial), see id., ECF Nos. 230, 231; Charles Ranaghan ("Ranaghan"), the City's controller, on day two and on May 7, 2021 ("day three" of the trial), see id., ECF Nos. 231, 232; the City of Maiden Police Chief Kevin Molis ("Chief Molis") on day three and on May 10, 2021 ("day four" of the trial), see id., ECF Nos. 232, 243; City of Maiden Police Captain John Amirault on day four of the trial, see id., ECF No. 243; Margaret Sullivan, the City's detail clerk, on day four and on May 11, 2021 ("day five" of the trial), see id., ECF Nos. 243, 244; and from Named Plaintiff City of Maiden Police Officer Jack Owens ("Owens") on day five of the trial, see id., ECF No. 244.
Both parties filed pre-trial briefing. See Def.’s Trial Br. ("City's Pre-Trial Br."), ECF No. 197; Pls.’ Trial Br. ( ), ECF No. 200.
The City's motion for judgment on partial findings, Def.’s Mot. J. Partial Findings ("Mot. J. Partial Findings"), ECF No. 237, filed during the ongoing trial on May 10, 2021, was allowed in part and denied in part, see Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 243. The Court allowed the City's motion with respect to Opt-In Plaintiff Heidi Mccormick and ruled that a workweek runs from Saturday of one calendar week until Saturday of the following calendar week. See Tr. Zoom Bench Trial ("Bench Trial Tr. Day Four") 75:15-24, ECF No. 261.4 The motion was otherwise denied. Id.
The City also filed a motion to decertify the Plaintiffs’ FLSA claim on May 10, 2021. See Def.’s Mot. Decertify, ECF No. 236. The Court did not rule on the motion.
After the conclusion of the trial, the Court invited the parties to file post-trial briefs, which the City did on May 18, 2021. See Def.’s Post-Trial Br. ("City's Post-Trial Br."), ECF No. 239. The Plaintiffs filed a post-trial brief on May 28, 2021. Pls.’ Post-Trial Br., ECF No. 240.
At a hearing on June 2, 2021, the Court made its post-trial rulings. See Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 245; Tr. Zoom Hr'g Rulings ("Tr. Rulings"), ECF No. 247. An order pertaining to the timing of actions required of the parties and to other future events yet to occur in this matter was entered on June 10, 2021. See Order ("Timing Order"), ECF No. 246. The Court's full written opinion is set out below.
In accordance with the Court's post-trial rulings and the Timing Order, judgment is yet to enter regarding the individual Plaintiffs’ entitlement to any compensation with respect to the Wage Act claim or the FLSA claim.
The City is a municipality located in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The parties agree that the City employs the Officers who work for the City of Maiden Police Department. See City's Pre-Trial Br. ¶ 2; Pls.’ Pre-Trial Br. ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 6. The City of Maiden Police Department distinguishes between Officers on the basis of rank. See Trial Ex. 8, Police Manual Police Department City Maiden ("Police Manual") § I.B., II (discussing the various roles of each rank in Section I.B. "Rules and Regulations: Definitions" and Section II "Duties by Rank and Assignment). Officers of Rank are Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains, and the Chief of Police. See Police Manual § II (). According to Chief Molis's testimony, all City of Maiden Police Officers are sworn in and eligible to perform detail work. See Tr. Zoom Bench Trial ("Bench Trial Tr. Day Three") 107:13-21, ECF No. 260.
The Named Plaintiffs Jack Owens, Katelyn Murphy, Patrick Manolian, Scott Mann, and Sean Hussey are Patrolmen. See Pls.’ Pre-Trial Br. ¶¶ 5, 6 (). Named Plaintiff Jeffrey Drees is an Officer of Rank, a Sergeant. Id. The Opt-In Plaintiffs in this action include Patrolmen and Officers of Rank. Id.
Patrolmen are members of the Maiden Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc. (the "Patrolmen's Union"), and Superior Officers are members of "MassCOP Local 479" (the "Superior Officers’ Union") (collectively, the "Unions"). See id. ¶¶ 212, 216.
Agreements between the Unions and the City govern general aspects of the relationship between the parties. See generally Trial Ex. 5, Contract Between City Maiden & Maiden Police Patrolmen's Association, Inc. July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2021 ("Agreement") (collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Patrolmen's Union); Trial Ex. 13, Mem. Agreement ("Memorandum") (agreement between the Superior Officers’ Union and the City executed on March 2, 2021).
Generally, some Officers work an administrative schedule, Monday through Friday, eight hours per day. See City's Pre-Trial Br. ¶ 13. Others work platoon shifts, two or three sixteen-hour shifts per calendar week, totaling thirty-two or forty-eight hours, with off-duty days in between. Id. ¶ 11. Officers are paid a salary that is not necessarily tied to the number of hours worked. See Tr. Zoom Bench Trial ("Bench Trial Tr. Day Two") 60:14-16, ECF No. 259 (Ranaghan's Testimony).
In addition to their routine work schedules, the Plaintiffs in this action also regularly provide police details ("detail work"). See Bench Trial Tr. Day Three 108-109 (Molis's Testimony). Detail work refers to services provided by Officers during their off-duty hours in response to a request made by a City Department (a "city detail" or "city detail work") or by a private third party (a "private detail" or "private detail work"). See id. According to Chief Molis, the broad purpose of detail work is to provide a public service and public safety. See id. 105:22-24. Detail work can be planned, as for road construction projects or scheduled strike actions, or unplanned, such as when a water main breaks unexpectedly. See id. 108, 119-20. The overwhelming majority of detail work is private detail work. See Bench Trial Tr. Day Four 12:23-25, 13:1-3 (Molis's Testimony). Private detail work is provided on the basis of an agreement between the City and the private person or entity requesting the detail. See id. 12-13. A list of City of Maiden Departments (the "City Departments") was provided by the City during the trial. See Trial Ex. 45, City of Maiden Departments. According to Ranaghan, the list identifies the City Departments that would be capable of making a request for a city detail. See Bench Trial Tr. Day Four 81:9-16 (Ranaghan's Testimony).
Chief Molis testified that all Officers are eligible to perform detail work. See Bench Trial Tr. Day Three 107:17-19 (Molis's Testimony). All detail work is performed on a voluntary basis during an Officer's off-duty hours. See id. 109:3-9. Once Officers have signed up for a detail work assignment, they are required to attend. See id. 110:8-10.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fraga v. Premium Retail Servs., Inc.
...least of which is the complexity of fashioning class wide relief under the FLSA. See, e.g., Owens v. City of Maiden, No. CV19-11835-WGY, 568 F.Supp.3d 77, 108–12 (D. Mass. Oct. 26, 2021). One other issue is immediately apparent: upon this record, the arbitration agreement self-destructs sol......
-
Reinig v. RBS Citizens
...Wis. May 23, 2011) (decertifying an FLSA collective on the eve of trial), aff'd, 705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013); Owens v. City of Malden, 568 F.Supp.3d 77, 110-11 (D. Mass. 2021) (decertifying an FLSA collective after hearing the evidence at trial); Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 561 F.Sup......