Carmody v. Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners
713 F.3d 401
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Officers sue City of Kansas City under the FLSA for unpaid overtime due to a flextime policy from 2006–2009.
- Policy provided flextime/time off instead of overtime, with no ongoing tracking of accrued flextime.
- IA investigation found 373.6 hours unpaid based on activity sheets and 107.4 hours based on other records, but could not confirm flextime usage in each instance.
- IA memorandum (Mar 8, 2010) stated it could not determine whether hours were given as flextime; Administration Bureau used IA figures to compute sums owed, but weekly overtime under FLSA remained in question.
- Discovery produced late documents; discovery closed Mar 2, 2012; officers attached affidavits on Apr 30, 2012 with weekly hour estimates; district court struck affidavits and granted summary judgment for city.
- On appeal, court reviews strike for abuse of discretion and summary judgment de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion striking the affidavits | Carmody argued affidavits were relevant to damages | City contends failure to comply with Rule 26(e) justified striking | No abuse of discretion in striking |
| Whether summary judgment was proper without the affidavits | Officers had evidence to show damages by inference | Anderson relaxed burden only with proven damages and records | Summary judgment affirmed; no proven actual damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (relaxed evidentiary standard when records are unavailable)
- Dole v. Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 915 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1990) (require proof of uncompensated labor before shifting burden)
- Keefer v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co., 238 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (sanctions doctrine; lesser sanctions may be appropriate)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting and movant's burden)
- Citizens Bank of Batesville, Ark. v. Ford Motor Co., 16 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 1994) (use of balancing test for admissibility of late- disclosed testimony)
- Keefer v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co., 238 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (repeated? (duplicate retained for clarity))