Bustillos v. Board of County Commissioners, 697 F. App'x 597

Background

Plaintiffs Martha Jimenez (911 dispatcher) and Amanda Vogelsang‑Wolf (detention officer) sued Hidalgo County under the FLSA alleging failure to pay for pre- and post‑shift briefings, pre/post‑shift tasks, and on‑call time.
District court granted summary judgment to the County on all claims, ruling most pre/post‑shift activities non‑compensable, plaintiffs failed to prove overtime amount, on‑call time not predominantly for County benefit, and any small amounts were de minimis.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and largely affirmed the district court’s rulings.
The court reversed only as to Jimenez’s claim that County policy required dispatchers to be present five minutes before a shift for briefing and that time was compensable; the court found that obtaining that information is integral and indispensable to the principal activity of dispatching.
The court held Jimenez presented sufficient evidence to show at least five minutes per shift of compensable pre‑shift time and that the de minimis regulation did not permit the County to disregard a regular, fixed five‑minute requirement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre‑shift briefings/tasks are compensable work	Briefings/tasks are integral and indispensable to job duties and thus compensable under FLSA	Most pre/post activities are preliminary/non‑compensable and can be performed off‑the‑clock or via notes	Affirmed for detention officer briefings only; reversed for dispatcher Jimenez’s five‑minute required briefing time
Whether plaintiffs proved amount of unpaid overtime	Plaintiffs offered testimony estimating pre‑shift time (Jimenez: 5–10 minutes) and employer records were inadequate	County argued plaintiffs failed to quantify unpaid time sufficiently for summary judgment purposes	Jimenez met the relaxed proof standard (just and reasonable inference) to show at least five minutes per shift; other claims failed for lack of proof
Whether required short periods can be treated as de minimis	Plaintiffs argued regular short pre‑shift requirement cannot be disregarded as de minimis	County relied on 29 C.F.R. §785.47 permitting disregard of insubstantial time	County cannot treat a fixed, regularly required five minutes as de minimis; de minimis applies only to uncertain, sporadic seconds/minutes
Whether on‑call time is compensable	Plaintiffs contended on‑call periods restricted employees for County’s benefit and were compensable	County argued on‑call time was not predominantly for County’s benefit and thus not compensable	Affirmed for County: plaintiffs did not show on‑call time was spent predominantly for County’s benefit

Key Cases Cited

Harte v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 864 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment affirmed)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (employer’s inadequate records permits use of reasonable inference to prove damages)
United States v. Wiles, 106 F.3d 1516 (10th Cir.) (panel quorum practice referenced)