Balestrieri v. Menlo Park Fire Protection District
800 F.3d 1094
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiffs are Menlo Park firefighters and EMS personnel who brought a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime suit against the Menlo Park Fire Protection District; district court granted summary judgment for the District and plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs work 48-hour shifts with 96 hours off; they may be assigned or volunteer for temporary (visiting) shifts at other stations and are sometimes called while off-duty.
- Firefighters are issued turnout gear (two sets of laundered coats/pants plus non‑laundered items) and may keep gear at the station or take it home; retrieving or transporting gear to a visiting station can require ~30 minutes uncompensated time in some scenarios.
- Plaintiffs seek overtime for time spent collecting/loading/transporting turnout gear when called from home or redirected from their home station to a visiting station, and for time spent returning gear after a visiting shift.
- Plaintiffs also challenge the District’s exclusion of annual‑leave buyback payments from the "regular rate" used to calculate overtime; the District consolidated vacation and sick leave into a single "annual leave" accrual and pays cashouts when balances grow large.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time spent collecting/transporting turnout gear to a visiting station is compensable work under FLSA/Portal‑to‑Portal | Loading/transporting gear is necessary for firefighters to perform their principal duties and thus is "integral and indispensable," so it must be paid as compensable time/overtime | The activity is preliminary/postliminary commuting‑type work (not intrinsic to firefighting); firefighters may keep gear at home, so retrieving gear is not indispensable | Not compensable. Activities are preliminary/postliminary under Portal‑to‑Portal and not "integral and indispensable" under Integrity Staffing; summary judgment for District affirmed |
| Whether returning/dropping off gear after visiting shifts is compensable | Post‑shift gear return is part of work and should be paid | Post‑shift transport is postliminary/commuting and excluded from compensable time | Not compensable; return trips are postliminary and excluded |
| Whether annual‑leave buyback payments must be included in the "regular rate" for overtime | Buybacks of unused sick/annual leave are effectively attendance bonuses and therefore must be included in the regular rate | Buyback payments are payments for idle time (vacation/sick) and are excluded from the regular rate under the statute and DOL regulations; here leave is a blended "annual leave" not a sick‑leave attendance bonus | Not included. Exclusion applies: plaintiffs cannot prevail because buybacks are for idle time and the District’s leave is an undifferentiated annual leave, not an attendance bonus |
| Whether any factual dispute precludes summary judgment on the leave‑buyback issue | Buybacks functionally reimburse unused leave (often sick leave) and should be treated as compensable bonuses; factual record shows many firefighters prefer using leave rather than cash | District’s uncontradicted evidence shows buybacks mitigate leave liability and leave is commingled such that buybacks are not sick‑leave attendance bonuses | No genuine issue that changes result; summary judgment affirmed because contract structure and undisputed facts show buybacks are excluded |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (superseding pre‑Portal case recognizing travel within workplace as compensable for miners)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (pre‑Portal decision holding certain preparatory walking time compensable)
- Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (2014) (Supreme Court: activity is compensable only if "integral and indispensable" to principal productive work)
- Bamonte v. City of Mesa, 598 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010) (donning/doffing at station not compensable where employee could do it at home; limits compensability when activity benefits employee)
- Featsent v. City of Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 1995) (payment for unused sick leave treated as excluded from "regular rate" under statute)