Chapman v. Grable Plumbing Company, Inc.
8:10-cv-01202
M.D. Fla.Aug 1, 2011Background
- Chapman was employed as a service technician/plumber by Grable from March 2007 until April 5, 2010, when terminated.
- Grable is a small plumbing business with nine employees; major work in the Tampa Bay area.
- Plumbers are paid hourly; pay starts upon arrival at the first job site and ends after the last job site; travel from home to the first job and from the last job site to home is not paid.
- Plumbers work on-call shifts; on-call time is paid only when responding to a call; limited restrictions apply, including proximity to the van and a possible shift trade; on-call time not spent responding to calls is disputed as compensable.
- Chapman alleges entitlement to compensation for on-call time, wait time in the van at 7:30 a.m., travel from home to first job, travel between job sites, and travel from last job site to home; payroll accuracy disputes exist regarding unpaid between-job travel.
- The court granted summary judgment for Grable in part and denied in part, including granting travel-from-home and on-call decisions in favor of defendant on certain issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is on-call time compensable under FLSA? | Chapman argues on-call time is compensable as waiting for work. | Grable contends on-call time is not compensable given restrictions and limited benefit to employee. | On-call time not compensable as a matter of law. |
| Is wait time in the service van at 7:30 a.m. compensable? | Chapman asserts wait time in the van is compensable because he must be ready to work and present from 7:30 a.m. | Grable disputes that wait time exists or is compensable; evidence inconsistent on policy. | Issue for the jury; not grantable on summary judgment due to credibility questions. |
| Are home-to-first and last-to-home travel times compensable? | Chapman seeks compensation for commuting time in the employer-provided vehicle. | Travel to and from home is ordinary commuting not compensable under Portal-to-Portal Act. | Summary judgment for travel time from home to first job and from last job to home in defendant's favor. |
| Is travel time between job sites compensable given Grable's payroll accounting? | Chapman contends payroll records underpaid him for between-job travel time. | Records show travel time was paid; discrepancies arose from payroll errors but were disputed. | Summary judgment denied on payroll discrepancies; defendant granted in part on unpaid between-job travel time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1992) (on-call time not compensable where restrictions are not onerous)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court 1944) (test for whether waiting time is employer- or employee-benefit based)
- Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (Supreme Court 1944) (time spent waiting primarily for employer's benefit considered work time)
- Bright v. Houston Northwest Medical Center, 888 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1989) (on-call time not compensable despite severe restrictions)
- Brekke v. City of Blackduck, 984 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Minn. 1997) (general rule that on-call impingement rarely yields compensation)
- Lurvey v. Metropolitan Dade County, 870 F. Supp. 1570 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (bomb squad on-call restrictions not enough to compel compensation)
- Arrington v. City of Macon, 986 F. Supp. 1474 (M.D. Ga. 1997) (police officers not entitled to on-call compensation under Skidmore/Birdwell)
- Burton v. Hillsborough County, 181 Fed. Appx. 829 (11th Cir. 2006) (home-to-work travel generally non-compensable)