Parrish v. Roosevelt Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
| Decision Date | 31 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 15-0703 JB/GJF,CIV 15-0703 JB/GJF |
| Parties | KEITH PARRISH, Plaintiff, v. THE ROOSEVELT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, a political sub-division existing under the law of the State of New Mexico, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
KEITH PARRISH, Plaintiff,
v.
THE ROOSEVELT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
a political sub-division existing under the law of the
State of New Mexico, Defendant.
No. CIV 15-0703 JB/GJF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
December 31, 2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on (i) Defendant The Roosevelt County Board of County Commissioners Motion for Summary Judgment, filed April 27, 2016 (Doc. 35)("MSJ"); and (ii) Plaintiff Keith Parrish's Motion to Strike Summary Judgment Affidavit of Amber Hamilton, filed May 11, 2016 (Doc. 36)("Motion to Strike"). The Court held a hearing on July 6, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should strike the Affidavit of Amber Hamilton (executed April 27, 2016), filed April 27, 2016 (Doc. 35-
Page 2
6)("Hamilton Aff."); and (ii) whether Defendant The Roosevelt County Board of County Commissioners ("Roosevelt County") is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiff's Civil Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, filed August 11, 2015 (Doc. 1)("Complaint"), specifically, its federal claim under the Fair labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-19 ("FLSA"), and its state-law claim for breach of contract. First, the Court will not strike the Hamilton Aff., because it is based on personal knowledge. Second, the Court concludes, that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact such that Roosevelt County is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on Parrish's FLSA claim. Parrish qualifies for the FLSA's administrative and executive exceptions. His salary exceeded $455.00 per month, his duties entailed supervising others, and he manages aspects of Roosevelt County Detention Center. The Court declines, however, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), over Parrish's state-law breach-of-contract claim. Accordingly, the Court grants the MSJ as to Parrish's FLSA claim and dismisses the breach-of-contract claim without prejudice.
The Court provides two factual background sections below. First, the Court provides a factual summary based on the Complaint's allegations to give context for the MSJ. Second, the Court provides the undisputed facts, which it derives from Roosevelt County's assertions of material fact in the MSJ, Plaintiff Keith Parrish's Response to "Defendant the Roosevelt County Board of County Commissioners Motion for Summary Judgment," filed May 11, 2016 (Doc. 37)("MSJ Response"), and Defendant the Roosevelt County Board of County Commissioners' Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment,2 filed May 31, 2016
Page 3
(Doc. 40)("MSJ Reply"), for purposes of deciding the MSJ under rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1. The Complaint's Factual Allegations.
Parrish is a former employee of Roosevelt County, which is a political subdivision operating under the laws of the State of New Mexico. See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 7 at 1, 3. Roosevelt County operates Roosevelt Detention in Portales, New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 6, at 2. Sometime in 2015, Roosevelt County informed Parrish that he would have to work "at least fifty hours a week." Complaint ¶ 8, at 3. Parrish proceeded to "generally work[] in excess of forty hours a week," which included "holidays, vacation, snow days," and on-call duty after his regular hours, to comply with Roosevelt County's command. Complaint ¶¶ 8-9, 14, at 3-4. Parrish also contends that "he never received a regular lunch break [because he] was expected to be working." Complaint ¶ 15, at 4.
2. The Undisputed Facts.
Parrish was paid more than $455.00 per week on a salaried basis while employed as a lieutenant at Roosevelt Detention. See MSJ ¶ 1, at 3 (setting forth this fact, citing Roosevelt
Page 4
County Detention Center Letter to Parish at 1, dated April 9, 2013, filed April 27, 2016 (Doc. 35-2)("Offer Letter")(offering Parrish a "modified salary of $35,238.00/year")).3 As a lieutenant,
Page 5
"Parrish was in charge of developing, directing and improving the inmate programs at RCDC." MSJ ¶ 2, at 3 (setting forth this fact, citing Parrish Dep. at 82:21-83:20; id. at 87:3-10; id. at
Page 6
100:15-24).4 Additionally, Parrish was in charge of the Roosevelt Detention when Administrator Casanova was away from the facility. See MSJ ¶ 3, at 3 (asserting this fact, citing Parrish Dep. at 98:22-99:2; id. at 99:12-16).5
Page 7
Parrish's duties as a lieutenant entailed "supervis[ing] the subordinate officers (sergeants, corporals and floor officers) in the facility." MSJ ¶ 4, at 3 (setting forth this fact, citing Parrish Depo. at 109:23-110:4; Hierarchy Chart, dated March 2, 2016, filed April 27, 2016 (Doc. 35-7)("Hierarchy Chart")).6 Parrish participated in the interview process for floor officers hired at Roosevelt Detention and made recommendations as to who should or should not be hired. See MSJ ¶ 5, at 3 (asserting this fact, citing Parrish Depo. at 113:18-114:10).7 Additionally, Parrish -- in his capacity as lieutenant -- participated in discussions regarding firing employees and was
Page 8
involved in the discipline process at Roosevelt Detention. See MSJ ¶ 6, at 3 (setting forth this fact, citing Parrish Depo. at 114:10-115:8).8
At some point while he was a lieutenant, Parrish was told that "he had to work at least fifty hours a week including holidays and 'snow days' without additional compensation." MSJ Response ¶ 3(B), at 4 (setting forth this fact, citing Parrish Depo. 138:1-25).9 Parrish was also "on-call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week between at least March and June, 2016." MSJ Response ¶ 3(C), at 4 (setting forth this fact, citing Parrish Depo. at 145:16-25; id. at 146:9-25; id. at 148:1-19; id. at 150:7-25; id. at 151:11-14; id. at 153:17-25; id. at 160:5-161:11); MSJ Reply at 6 (not disputing this fact).10 Between March and June, 2015, Roosevelt Detention was
Page 9
understaffed and sometimes had only two people on duty making the environment dangerous for both officers and detainees. See MSJ Response ¶ 3(D), at 5 (setting forth this fact, citing Hamilton Depo. at 18:4-10; id. at 26:15-25).11
Roosevelt Detention's policy for employee lunch breaks allows all full-time employees a one hour, unpaid lunch break, except for departments with established thirty-minute lunch breaks, and full time employees are eligible for two additional fifteen-minute breaks per day. See MSJ Response ¶ 3(G), at 5 (setting forth this fact, citing Hamilton Depo. at 23:1-24:21).12 Parrish was, under Roosevelt County's policies, a full-time employee, see MSJ Response ¶ 3(F), at 5 (setting for this fact, citing Hamilton Depo. at 21:1-12; id. at 21:23-22:18)),13 and rarely, if ever, received a meal break or the two fifteen minute breaks to which he was entitled, see MSJ Response ¶ 3(E), at 5 (setting forth this fact, citing Hamilton depo. at 27:6-28:2; id. at 29:11-12; id. at 30:2-24; id. at 31:1-13; id. at 35:17-23; Compensation and Benefit Program at 1, filed May 11, 2016 (Doc. 37-5)("Comp. Program"); Email from Becky White to Roosevelt County Employees, dated May 15, 2015, filed May 11, 2016 (Doc. 37-6)("Becky White Email)).14 All
Page 10
non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime, see MSJ Response ¶ 3(H), at 6 (setting forth this fact, citing Hamilton Depo. at 25:16-25),15 and sergeants at Roosevelt Detention were entitled to overtime compensation, see MSJ Response ¶ 3(I), at 6 (setting forth this fact, citing Hamilton Depo. at 27:1; id. at 41:24-25).16
On August 11, 2015, Parrish commenced this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See Complaint at 1. In the Complaint, Parrish asserts two claims against Roosevelt County: (i) Count I asserts a claim for violations of the FLSA's overtime requirements, see Complaint ¶¶ 16-21, at 4-5; and (ii) Count II asserts breach of contract for failing to pay Parrish for overtime or for regularly scheduled lunch breaks, see Complaint ¶¶ 22-26, at 5.
1. Roosevelt County's MSJ.
In the MSJ, Roosevelt County advances two primary arguments: (i) that, at all relevant times, Parrish was exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §213(a)(1); and (ii) Roosevelt County did not breach any contract. See MSJ at 1. Initially, Roosevelt County restates a series of facts pertaining to Parrish's employment history at Roosevelt Detention. See MSJ at 2-3.17 Roosevelt County then argues that Parrish, as
Page 11
lieutenant, was exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay requirements under the FLSA's administrative and executive exemptions. See MSJ at 4-5. According to Roosevelt County, "[a] court's inquiry into the exempt status of an employee is fact bound and case specific," MSJ at 5 (quoting Archuleta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 543 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 2008))(alteration added), and, "to establish exempt status," Roosevelt County argues, "the employer must show that the employee meets both the FLSA's 'salary' test and the appropriate 'duties' test for the exemption which purportedly applies,"' MSJ at 5 (quoting Monroe Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Monroe, 600 F. Supp. 2d 790, 794 (W.D. La. 2009)(James, J.)).
Turning first to the administrative exception, Roosevelt County notes that the following factors determine whether an employee qualifies for it: (i) "an employee must be compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week"; (ii) the employee's primary duty must be "'the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers'"; and (iii) the employee's primary duty must include "'the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.'" MSJ at 5 (quoting Bernard v. Grp. Pub., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d at 1222 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)). Roosevelt County explains that an administrative employee's primary duty must be "to perform work directly related to assisting with the running...
To continue reading
Request your trial