Roy v. County of Lexington, South Carolina
| Decision Date | 18 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:93-2292-19. |
| Citation | 948 F.Supp. 529 |
| Parties | John R. ROY, Gary Waller, David Rhoten, Daniel C. Force, Crystal Galloway, Gary W. Holmes, Eric T. Bushey, M.T. Hammond, John R. Lillard, David H. Dixon, Gary Semones, Richard McManus, Jr., Jason Hentz, Patricia H. Dupuis, Curtis Scott Ward, Mike Tanner, Gary A. Seibert, Robert McKeever, John L. Windhorn, Bobby Daggerhart, Melissa P. Harrison, Jay F. Burton, Teresa Hill, B.L. Burnes, Dwight C. Nolff, Thad C. Miller, David W. Shull, David E. Davis, Patricia H. Barnett, Joseph J. Rooney, Kevin G. Hicks, Robbie Kubler, Dalton E. Shull, John V. Ruff, Jr., Eric McFarland, James Garcia, Cynthia D. Plant, Robert D. McClanahan, George E. Hardy, Fern Jenkins, Jason Logan, Mildred H. Miller, Betty Koerner, J. Stuart Platt, Evelyn J. Williams, Jacqueline Fink, Jonathan L. Humphrey, Carroll W. Bledsoe, Jr., Johnathan M. Sebring, Alice H. Bennett, Tony L. Wingard, Stephen C. Sightler, and Tami Leigh Steinlage, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF LEXINGTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Gerald Frederick Smith of Svalina, Richardson & Larson, and James Brown Richardson, Jr., Columbia, SC, for plaintiffs.
Stephen Terry Savitz and Linda Pearce Edwards of Gignilliat, Savitz & Bettis, Columbia, SC, for defendant.
In an Order filed May 13, 1996, this Court disposed of all liability issues in this action for overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. During the time that this matter was referred to a special master to compute damages, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified issues regarding the fluctuating workweek method of pay, see § 778.114, in Bailey v. County of Georgetown, 94 F.3d 152 (4th Cir.1996). After having received supplemental briefing from the parties, this Court concludes that, based on Bailey, Part VI of the Order filed May 13, 1996, must be vacated and replaced with this Order. All other portions of the Order shall remain as written.
As explained in the Order filed May 13, 1996, the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) employees in this case were paid pursuant to the fluctuating workweek schedule, which means that their overtime was based on one-half of their regular hourly rate for the week. See § 778.114. The employees contend that Lexington County failed to comply with § 778.114 and that therefore they were entitled to be paid time and one-half overtime. See id.; 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Specifically, they argue that there was no "clear mutual understanding of the parties" as to their compensation. See § 778.114. Bailey makes clear in this circuit that as to the parties' understanding regarding compensation, the regulation requires only that the employees be informed, whether in writing or otherwise, that they are paid based on a fixed salary while the regular hours that they work fluctuate from week to week. Bailey, 94 F.3d at 154-57. It is not necessary that they be explained how any overtime they receive in addition to their salary is calculated. Id.
Lexington County explained to the employees and the employees understood that they were paid a fixed salary apart from overtime, even though the regular hours upon which that fixed salary was based actually varied among weeks. As discussed in the Order filed May 13, 1996, the annual salary was divided into bi-weekly paychecks, which compensated the employees for 86 regular hours each. Each check also included pay for any overtime hours, such as sleep interruptions. Although the employees were paid a fixed amount every two weeks for 86 regular hours, the actual number of regular hours they worked in those two weeks fluctuated because they worked on a three-day recurring cycle of twenty-four and one-half...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc.
...of the Wage and Hour Division cannot establish a practice or policy" of the Administrator), partially vacated on other grounds, 948 F.Supp. 529 (D.S.C.1996) and Petrlik v. Community Realty Co., 347 F.Supp. 638, 643 (D.Md.1972) ("`authoritative' rulings and interpretations of the agency need......
-
Trocheck v. Pellin Emergency Medical Service, Inc.
...hired under the policy." Roy v. County of Lexington, S.C., 928 F.Supp. 1406, 1418 (D.S.C.1996), vacated in non-relevant part, 948 F.Supp. 529 (D.S.C.1996), affirmed, 141 F.3d 533 (4th Cir.1998). An employee's protest does not need to rise to the level of voluntary termination of employment ......
-
Abendschein v. Montgomery County, Md.
...engaged test, see Bagrowski, 845 F.Supp. at 1120, and Roy v. County of Lexington, S.C., 928 F.Supp. 1406 (D.S.C.), vacated, in part, 948 F.Supp. 529 (1996). In Roy, the District Court stated in a footnote that neither party argued that the Fourth Circuit had adopted a test, and that in Dono......
-
Roy v. County of Lexington, South Carolina
...workweek issue, holding that the County could employ the fluctuating workweek method in light of Bailey. See Roy v. County of Lexington, 948 F.Supp. 529 (D.S.C.1996). The district court then referred the case to a special master for calculation of damages, requiring EMS and the County each ......
-
Using the Fluctuating Workweek Compensation Method to Reduce Overtime Expenses in Public Organizations
...Retrieved Ju ne 15, 2005, fromhttp://www.payroll-taxes.com/articles/fluctuatin gWorkweeks.ht ml 41 Roy v. County of Lexington, S.C., 948 F.Supp. 529 (D.S.C. 199 6) aff’d, 141 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 1998).42 Griffin v. Wake County, 142 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 1998).43 Ditmer, R.W. (n.d.). The Fluct......