Ferguson et al v. Arkansas Support Network, Inc.
Filing
48
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, (See Opinion and Order for specifics). Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on October 15, 2018. (lgd)
Case 5:17-cv-05257-PKH Document 48
Filed 10/15/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 402
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
SHAY FERGUSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, et al.
v.
PLAINTIFFS
No. 5:17-CV-05257
ARKANSAS SUPPORT NETWORK, INC.
DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 44) for partial summary judgment, brief in
support (Doc. 45), and statement of facts (Doc. 46). Defendant filed a response (Doc. 47) in
opposition to the motion, but did not file a response to the statement of facts. For purposes of this
motion, Plaintiffs’ statement of facts is deemed admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); W.D. Ark. R.
56.1(c). The deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply has not yet passed, but because Defendant’s
motion raises no issue unaddressed by Plaintiffs’ motion, no reply is necessary.
Defendant employed Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as home health workers
providing services in the homes of Defendant’s customers. Defendant misclassified Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated as exempt from the FLSA’s wage and overtime requirements under the
Department of Labor’s companionship services exemption. In the instant motion, Plaintiffs ask
the Court to decide as a matter of law that Defendant could not rely on the companionship services
exemption for its employees as of January 1, 2015, that Defendant’s continued application of this
exemption after that day was a willful violation of the FLSA, and that Defendant’s FLSA violation
was not done in good faith and with reasonable basis.
On a motion for summary judgment, even where there is no dispute of material fact, the
burden rests on the movant to show that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). Plaintiffs have met this burden with respect to the date of misclassification of employees.
1
Case 5:17-cv-05257-PKH Document 48
Filed 10/15/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 403
See Cummings v. Bost, Inc., 218 F.Supp.3d 978, 986 (W.D. Ark. 2016). The Department of
Labor’s Final Rule precluding application of the companionship services exemption to home
health workers employed by third-party employers was effective January 1, 2015.
Because all reasonable inferences must be granted in favor of the nonmovant, however,
Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to summary judgment on the remaining issues of
Defendant’s willfulness and whether Defendant acted in good faith based on a reasonable
interpretation of the FLSA. Defendant imprecisely argues that “questions of intent are not for the
Court to decide.” (Doc. 47, p. 2). Where the undisputed facts are such that a reasonable factfinder
could only decide the issue of intent against a party, the Court may indeed resolve questions of
intent on summary judgment. In this case, however, a great deal of the evidence for Defendant’s
alleged willfulness and lack of good faith is inferential. Due to then-pending appeals and
Defendant’s reliance on reimbursement for services in order to pay its employees, inferences can
be drawn in Defendant’s favor on the issues of intent and good faith. It is immaterial whether
these inferences are persuasive—that they are reasonable is enough to overcome summary
judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 44) for partial summary
judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as
the Court finds as a matter of law that as of January 1, 2015, Defendant could not apply the
companionship services exemption to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. The motion is
otherwise DENIED and this matter remains pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October, 2018.
/s/P. K. Holmes, ΙΙΙ
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?