Martinez et al v. Ehrenberg Fire District

Filing 57

ORDER denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/26/2015.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Luis E. Martinez, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-00299-PHX-DGC

Ehrenberg Fire District,

13

Defendant.

14
15

On June 8, 2015, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for

16

summary judgment and denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that

17

Plaintiffs were employees – not volunteers – within the meaning of the Fair Labor

18

Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Doc. 53 at 11. Defendant has filed

19

a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court erred in not applying the “20%

20

guideline” set forth in Department of Labor (“DOL”) Opinion Letters. Doc. 55.

21

The 20% guideline articulated by the DOL “suggests that receipt of pay less than

22

20% of what a fulltime employee would receive for the same service is indicative of

23

volunteer status.” Doc. 53 at 8. Relying on Opinion Letter FLSA2005-51, the Court

24

found that the guideline did not apply because it “assumes that the compensation in

25

question is not based on hours worked,” and Plaintiffs’ pay was in part based on hours

26

worked. Id. at 8-9.

27

Defendant’s motion notes that two other DOL Opinion Letters apply the 20%

28

guideline to situations where pay can fluctuate depending on the number of shifts worked

1

by firefighters and the number of hours spent on call during shifts. Doc. 55 at 3-5. The

2

Court read these Opinion Letters when considering the summary judgment motions. The

3

Court found significant that both letters were addressing compensation based on a “per

4

call” basis, a form of compensation specifically identified in the Code of Federal

5

Regulations as appropriate for firefighters. See 29 C.F.R. § 553.106(e). As the Court

6

noted in its order, DOL Opinion Letters also make clear that per-hour compensation is

7

viewed as being tied to productivity and inconsistent with volunteer status. Doc. 53 at 6-

8

7. The Court therefore found continuing meaning in the language of Opinion Letter

9

FLSA2005-51 – the original source of the 20% guideline – suggesting that the guideline

10

does not apply when compensation is based on “hours worked.”

11

FLSA2005-51 at 2. The Court continues to hold this view.

Opinion Letter

12

What is more, the 20% guideline is only a factor to be considered – it is not

13

dispositive. The Court made clear that the 20% guideline would not have changed the

14

outcome even if it was applied: “Given the other factors identified in this order, the

15

Court would find that Plaintiffs are not volunteers even if the 20% guideline applied and

16

Plaintiffs fell below it.” Doc. 53 at 9 n.3. Defendant does not challenge the other

17

grounds upon which the Court’s decision rested.

18

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 55) is denied.

19

Dated this 26th day of June, 2015.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-