Stanley v. CAR-BER Testing Texas, LLC
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiffs' objections are overruled. The Court orders that the #61 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by CAR-BER Testing Texas, LLC is granted in part and denied in part, as recommended by Judge Giblin. The plaintiffs' claims for compensable time based on the donning and doffing of the PPE are dismissed with prejudice, but genuine issues of material fact exist on the remaining claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Signed by Judge Marcia A. Crone on 6/29/15. (mrp, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JOSHUA GARRIN STANLEY, et al.,
CAR-BER TESTING TEXAS, LLC,
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-374
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for
consideration and recommended disposition of case-dispositive pretrial motions. On June 3, 2015,
Judge Giblin issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant
the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in part and deny it part.
On June 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
The plaintiffs object on the grounds that they produced evidence sufficient for a jury to find that
their personal protective equipment (PPE) was integral and indispensable to their work on the
Motiva Crude Expansion Project at issue in this case. The plaintiffs also cite record evidence and
case law, all of which was before Judge Giblin at the time he issued his report on the motion for
summary judgment. In conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the
magistrate judge thoroughly considered the summary judgment evidence, viewing it in the light
most favorable to the plaintiffs. Judge Giblin addressed the specific PPE at issue and did not err
in his application of governing Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent outlining the “integral
and indispensable” test in considering the plaintiffs’ claim for time spent donning and doffing their
PPE. See Report, at pp. 12-15. Judge Giblin also discussed Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., v.
Busk, __U.S.__, 135 S. Ct. 513, 518 (2014) and Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956) in his
report, which plaintiffs cite in their objections. The plaintiffs’ objections do not show how Judge
Giblin erred in his application of those cases to the evidence at hand. Judge Giblin’s analysis on
the PPE issue contains ample legal support and the cases cited by plaintiffs in their objections do
not persuade the Court that his findings were in error. After considering the record, the Court
agrees that the PPE at issue here was not integral and indispensable to the plaintiffs’ work. Even
if it were integral and indispensable, the plaintiffs’ PPE claim does not rise above the level of de
minimis because the evidence shows that it took less than five minutes to don and doff this PPE.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court conducted a de novo review of the magistrate
judge’s findings, the record, the specific objections, and the applicable law in this proceeding. After
review, the Court finds that Judge Giblin’s findings should be accepted.
The Court ORDERS that the report and recommendation (#82) is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs’
objections (#83) are OVERRULED. The Court further ORDERS that the defendant’s motion for
partial summary judgment (#61) is granted in part and denied in part, as recommended by Judge
Giblin. The plaintiffs’ claims for compensable time based on the donning and doffing of the PPE
are dismissed with prejudice, but genuine issues of material fact exist on the remaining claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 7th day of September, 2004.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 29th day of June, 2015.
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?