Bates v. Hardeman County Government
1:20-cv-02869
W.D. Tenn.Mar 1, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Rebecca Bates, a former EMT for Hardeman County Ambulance Service, sued under the FLSA seeking unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, front pay, declaratory relief, and fees.
- Bates alleges the county maintained an unlawful policy paying overtime only when an employee worked over 48 hours in a workweek, causing unpaid overtime across numerous weeks during her employment.
- Bates claims she worked over 40 hours in many weeks and that, when she complained, supervisors and the mayor intimidated and coerced her to continue under the pay practice.
- Defendants are Hardeman County Government and Hardeman County Ambulance Service; Defendants moved to dismiss the Ambulance Service as a separate defendant under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The complaint itself acknowledged the Ambulance Service is a department of Hardeman County; Tennessee law permits suits against counties but not separate suits against county departments.
- Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion; the Court granted the motion and dismissed Hardeman County Ambulance Service as a non-suable entity.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hardeman County Ambulance Service is a separate suable entity | Bates sued the Ambulance Service as a defendant (seeking relief for FLSA violations) | Ambulance Service is merely a county department, not a separate legal entity; state law controls capacity to be sued | Court dismissed Hardeman County Ambulance Service because it is a department of the county and not separately suable |
Key Cases Cited
- RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125 (6th Cir. 1996) (discusses Rule 12(b)(6) legal-sufficiency standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must contain factual matter sufficient for facial plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (labels/conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard explained)
- Watson v. Gill, [citation="40 F. App'x 88"] (6th Cir. 2002) (county departments are not separately suable; suit is against the county)