Carlo Llorca v. Sheriff, Collier County, Florida
893 F.3d 1319
11th Cir.2018Background
- Former Collier and Lee County sheriff deputies sued under the FLSA and Florida Minimum Wage Act seeking pay for (1) time spent donning and doffing required police gear and (2) time spent commuting in marked patrol vehicles.
- Deputies were required to arrive for shifts wearing uniform and protective gear (duty belt, radio, holster, ballistics vest, etc.) but were allowed to don/doff at home; they estimated ~30 minutes per shift.
- Deputies commuted in marked patrol vehicles and were required to keep radios on, listen for calls, respond to major emergencies, and observe roads for traffic violations during commutes; employers paid for time actually spent responding to calls/enforcing law but not for passive drive time.
- District court granted summary judgment for the sheriffs; deputies appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and framed compensability under the Portal-to-Portal Act and the "integral and indispensable" test from Steiner/Integrity Staffing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are donning/doffing of police gear compensable under FLSA? | Donning/doffing is necessary for deputies to perform principal law‑enforcement duties and thus is integral and indispensable. | Donning/doffing is a preliminary/postliminary activity; deputies may change at home and it is not an intrinsic part of principal duties. | Not compensable—donning/doffing at home is not "integral" though arguably "indispensable," and thus falls within noncompensable preliminary/postliminary activities. |
| Is commuting in employer‑provided, marked patrol vehicles compensable when deputies must monitor radio and observe/enforce traffic? | Deputies perform work during commute (monitoring roads, using radar, enforcing violations), so commute time is compensable. | Portal‑to‑Portal excludes travel to/from principal place of performance; activities incidental to use of employer vehicle (monitoring radio/observing roads) are noncompensable. | Not compensable—commute time in marked vehicles and incidental activities are excluded; monitoring radios/observing roads are incidental and not integral and indispensable. |
| Are deputies entitled to relief under Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA)? | State-law claim independent or broader; plaintiffs seek same recovery under state law. | FMWA is construed consistent with FLSA; if FLSA fails, so does FMWA claim. | Denied—FMWA claims fail because plaintiffs are not owed compensation under the FLSA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2014) (defines "integral and indispensable" and limits compensable pre/postshift activities)
- IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (U.S. 2005) (preshift activities necessary for work are not automatically "integral and indispensable")
- Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1956) (older decision recognizing circumstances where changing/showering was compensable)
- Tenn. Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590 (U.S. 1944) (early broad definition of "work" under FLSA)
- Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc., 487 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2007) (preshift security screening not compensable; reliance on Portal-to-Portal)
- Dade County v. Alvarez, 124 F.3d 1380 (11th Cir. 1997) (court determines legal compensability; factual disputes for jury)