Clements v. Randolph Hotel, Inc.
Filing
25
ORDER denying 21 --motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 5/19/2017. (BK)
Case 8:16-cv-03395-SDM-TBM Document 25 Filed 05/19/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 317
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DAMON CLEMENTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 8:16-cv-3395-T-23TBM
RANDOLPH HOTEL, INC.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
From August 2014 to October 2016, the Randolph Hotel in St. Petersburg,
Florida, employed Damon Clements as a desk clerk. Clements answered the phone,
occasionally ordered cleaning products from a supplier in Orlando, and checked
guests into the 44-room, extended-stay hotel. Alleging an FLSA violation, Clements
sues (Doc. 1) the Randolph Hotel, which moves (Doc. 21) for summary judgment
and argues that neither “enterprise” nor “individual” coverage applies to Clements.
DISCUSSION
The FLSA covers a company if the company’s gross receipts equal or
exceed $500,000 and if the company employs any person who either “engage[s] in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” or “handl[es], sell[s], or
otherwise work[s] on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for
commerce.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). In 2013, 2014, and 2015, the hotel
earned $212,657; $284,073; and $244,302, respectively. (Docs. 22-4 through 22-6,
Case 8:16-cv-03395-SDM-TBM Document 25 Filed 05/19/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID 318
which show the company’s gross receipts) Because the hotel earned less than
$500,000 annually during Clements’s employment, enterprise coverage is
inapplicable.
Also, the FLSA covers an employee “engaged in commerce or the
production of goods for commerce.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a) and 207(a)(1). Under
Section 203(b), “commerce” means “trade, commerce, transportation, transmission,
or communication among the several States or between any State and any place
outside thereof.” Not every employee who interacts with a person or company in
another state engages in interstate commerce. McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 493
(1943) (explaining that “Congress did not intend that the regulation of hours and
wages should extend to the furthest reaches of federal authority”). To benefit from
the FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime provisions, an employee must “regularly”
participate in interstate commerce, for example, by frequently calling a person in
another state. Thorne v. All Restoration Serv., Inc., 448 F.3d 1264, 1266
(11th Cir. 2006).
Randolph Hotel argues that Clements engaged too irregularly with
non-Floridians to qualify for individual coverage. Several reasons might support
the application of individual coverage to Clements. First, Clements occasionally
ordered cleaning supplies from a merchant in Orlando. (Doc. 22 at 3; Doc. 24-1 at 2)
Even though the supplies likely originated outside Florida, Randolph Hotel correctly
argues that Clements’s purchase of the supplies fails to trigger individual coverage.
-2-
Case 8:16-cv-03395-SDM-TBM Document 25 Filed 05/19/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID 319
A person who buys from an in-state merchant an item that previously traveled across
state lines engages in no interstate commerce even though the merchant bought the
item from an out-of-state supplier. Thorne, 448 F.3d at 1267.
Second, Dale Schooley, who managed Randolph until the hotel’s closing in
late 2016, states that guests occasionally paid by check. (Doc. 22 at 2) Clements
argues that “it is believed that [] some of the checks received by Plaintiff on behalf of
Defendant came from banks outside of Florida.” (Doc. 24 at 4) Thorne cites with
approval Kitchings v. Florida United Methodist Children’s Home, Inc., 393 F.Supp.2d
1282 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (Presnell, J.), which rejects the plaintiff’s argument that the
use of a credit card constitutes interstate commerce. Under Thorne and Kitchings, the
possibility that a foreign bank might process a payment from a plaintiff to an in-state
merchant fails to establish individual coverage.
Third, Clements states that he “often . . . interacted with guests who were from
states other than Florida” (Doc. 24-1 at 1), but the Randolph Hotel rebuts Clements’s
testimony by proffering a compilation of rental applications. (Doc. 22-1) Of the 73
applications in the compilation, 38 include a Florida address or a Florida workplace,
31 lack sufficient information to infer the applicant’s previous residence, and just 4
evidence an applicant who moved to Florida from another state. (Doc. 22-1 at 67,
69, 87, and 93, the out-of-state applicants) The applications, which show that
out-of-state guests infrequently and sporadically visited the Randolph Hotel, refute
the assertion that Clements regularly interacted in person with guests from outside
-3-
Case 8:16-cv-03395-SDM-TBM Document 25 Filed 05/19/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID 320
Florida. See Gregory v. Quality Removal, Inc., 2014 WL 5494448 at *7–*8
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2014) (Bloom, J.) (collecting authority to explain that “irregular
and sporadic” interstate contacts fail to invoke individual coverage).
Fourth, Clements declares that he “often” communicated by phone with
people outside Florida. (Doc. 24-1 at 1) Citing Dent v. Giamo, 606 F.Supp.2d 1357
(S.D. Fla. 2009) (Ryskamp, J.), Randolph Hotel argues that Clements “cannot
establish that Defendant was engaged in interstate commerce.” (Doc. 21 at 11) Dent
grants summary judgment for the defendant partly because “no evidence” suggested
that the plaintiff regularly communicated with out-of-state customers. 606 F.Supp.2d
at 1316. In contrast to Dent, Clements’s sworn declaration evidences regular,
interstate communication as part of Clement’s employment. Although Randolph
Hotel could have submitted telephone records to foreclose Clements’s argument,
the hotel proffers no evidence to rebut Clements’s testimony that he “often”
communicated in interstate commerce. See Gashlin v. Int’l Clinical Res.-US, LLC,
2014 WL 3057383 at *4 (M.D. Fla. July 7, 2014) (Dalton, J.) (denying the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment and observing that the defendant failed
to submit telephone records, which failure precluded determining the frequency of
the plaintiff’s interstate communication).
CONCLUSION
The ordering of out-of-state supplies from an in-state supplier and the
handling of a check drawn on a foreign bank fail to establish individual coverage.
-4-
Case 8:16-cv-03395-SDM-TBM Document 25 Filed 05/19/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID 321
The compilation of rental applications shows that Clements’s in-person interactions
with out-of-state guests were irregular, and Clements’s declaration fails to create a
factual dispute as to the in-person interactions. But Clements’s declaration evidences
regular telephonic communication with people outside Florida as part of Clements’s
employment. Because the Randolph Hotel fails to exclude the possibility that
individual coverage applies in this action, the motion (Doc. 21) for summary
judgment is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 19, 2017.
-5-
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?