Paczkowski v. My Choice Family Care, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-759-slc |
| Citation | 384 F.Supp.3d 991 |
| Parties | Katy PACZKOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MY CHOICE FAMILY CARE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Larry A. Johnson, Summer Hart Murshid, Timothy Peter Maynard, Hawks Quindel, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiffs.
Alexander M. DeGuire, Mitchell Wayne Quick, Paul E. Benson, Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Katy Paczkowski brings this action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees, as a collective and class action against her former employer, defendant My Choice Family Care, Inc. ("My Choice"), for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. , and Wisconsin wage and hour laws. Paczkowski is a former Care Manager at My Choice, a non-profit managed care organization. In this suit, Paczkowski contends that My Choice violated the FLSA and Wisconsin law by failing to pay overtime compensation to her and other Care Managers.
Before the court is My Choice's motion to dismiss Paczkowski's state law claim on the ground that My Choice is a nonprofit organization to which Wisconsin's overtime regulation, Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 274.03, does not apply.1 Dkts. 12, 13. Paczkowski does not dispute My Choice's nonprofit status but disagrees with its contention that nonprofits generally are not covered by Wisconsin's overtime regulation. Because I agree that the terms of the regulation do not apply to My Choice, I am granting My Choice's motion for partial dismissal.
Defendant My Choice is a private "managed care organization" that provides various healthcare and related services to adults and seniors with disabilities. Am. Compl., dkt. 23-1, ¶ 12. My Choice provides this care through its Care Managers, such as plaintiff, who provide ongoing, day-to-day case management services for its members. Id. at ¶ 17. Since its inception in 2016, My Choice has been approved by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
OPINIONDefendant contends that as a nonprofit, it is not covered by Wisconsin's overtime regulation, Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 274.03, and therefore plaintiff's state law claims must be dismissed. Defendant's motion, which appears to present a question of first impression in Wisconsin, requires this court to interpret provisions of Wisconsin's administrative code. In doing so, the court employs ordinary principles of statutory construction. Orion Flight Servs., Inc. v. Basler Flight Serv. , 2006 WI 51, ¶ 18, 290 Wis. 2d 421, 435, 714 N.W.2d 130, 137 ; Basinas v. State , 104 Wis.2d 539, 546, 312 N.W.2d 483 (1981). "Statutory interpretation begins with—and, absent ambiguity, is confined to—the language of the statute," and statutory words and phrases, unless technical in nature or carrying a peculiar legal meaning, are construed according to common and ordinary usage. Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, Inc. , 2001 WI 81, ¶ 10, 244 Wis.2d 758, 628 N.W.2d 833 ; Peterson v. Midwest Sec. Ins. Co. , 2001 WI 131, ¶ 19, 248 Wis. 2d 567, 636 N.W. 2d 727 ; see also Wis. Stat. § 990.01(1). In determining a term's ordinary and common meaning, a court may consult a dictionary. Rouse v. Theda Clark Med. Ctr., Inc. , 2007 WI 87, ¶ 21, 302 Wis.2d 358, 735 N.W.2d 30. In addition, the court should consider the statute's context and structure. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cty. , 2004 WI 58, ¶ 46, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 663, 681 N.W.2d 110, 124. "[S]tatutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results." Id.
If the rule's meaning is plain, then the court's inquiry ends. State v. Reed , 2005 WI 53, ¶ 13, 280 Wis.2d 68, 695 N.W.2d 315. If, on the other hand, an administrative regulation is ambiguous, then the court may resort to extrinsic aids to determine the agency's intent. Williams v. Integrated Community Services, Inc. , 2007 WI App 159, ¶ 13, 303 Wis. 2d 697, 736 N.W. 2d 226. A regulation is ambiguous if "it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in either two or more senses." Hacker v. State Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. , 197 Wis. 2d 441, 454, 541 N.W.2d 766, 770 (1995). In resolving the ambiguity, the court defers to the agency's interpretation and application of its own regulations unless the interpretation is inconsistent with the regulation or is clearly erroneous. Williams , 2007 WI App at ¶ 13, 303 Wis.2d 697, 736 N.W.2d 226. When interpreting a state regulation, this court's task is to predict how the Wisconsin Supreme Court would answer the question. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide Ins. Co. , 352 F.3d 1098, 1100 (7th Cir. 2003).
This regulation appears to have been last amended in 1981.
Defendant argues that the first two sentences of this definition defeat plaintiff's claim that My Choice is a mercantile establishment covered by Chapter 274. As defendant reads the definition, the term "synonymous" in the first sentence means "equal to" or "the same as." Thus, defendant argues, mercantile establishments are only those establishments that are "commercial." And those establishments, says defendant, are only those that are "viewed with regard to" or "designed for profit," as specified in the second sentence. Because My Choice is a nonprofit organization, argues defendant, it is not a mercantile establishment and is not covered by the overtime law. At first blush, both logic and common sense would seem to support this position.
Not so fast, responds plaintiff: if DWD had wanted to exclude all nonprofits from coverage, then it would have said so, or it would have created an exemption to that effect. Instead, argues plaintiff, by defining the term "mercantile" broadly, DWD plainly meant to cover at least some nonprofit organizations. More specifically, plaintiff argues that the word "synonymous" as used in the definition is broader than defendant suggests: plaintiff points out that the word "synonym" has been defined as "a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the same language." Br. in Opp., dkt. 24, at 9 (citing Webster's New World Dictionary and Thesaurus (2nd ed. 2012)) (emphasis added). Finding a toehold in this definition's "nearly the same" language, plaintiff argues that by using the term "synonymous," DWD intended the regulation to cover "both commercial organizations ... and those organizations that are similar to, but not commercial organizations...." Id. (emphasis added).
This argument, while semantically clever, is unpersuasive. First, it is hard to reconcile plaintiff's interpretation with the next sentence of DWD's definition, as defendant points out. But let's dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s: Plaintiff has supported her argument with a definition of the word "synonym." The word actually used in the definition is "synonymous," which is defined as:
Returning to the dictionary, "nonprofit" is defined as "not conducted or maintained for the purpose of making a profit," see Webster's, supra , at 1538, while "commercial" means: "1: of, in or relating to commerce; ... 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial