Doe v. Butler Amusements, Inc.
71 F. Supp. 3d 1125
| N.D. Cal. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (John Doe I & II) were H-2B carnival workers for Butler Amusements, a traveling carnival operator that moves to many temporary sites and also maintains permanent offices/units in Oregon and California. Plaintiffs never worked at the Beaverton central office and were paid through unit offices/local offices.
- Butler operates short-term carnivals at many distinct parcels (typical event ~9–10 days), sets up/tears down equipment, and collects revenue on-site; accounting was performed by an outside accountant who produced revenue/receipt summaries for 2008–2009.
- Plaintiffs allege FLSA claims (minimum wage, overtime, unlawful deductions) and California wage-and-hour claims (minimum wage, overtime, reimbursements, waiting time penalties, etc.).
- Defendant invoked the FLSA "amusement exemption" (29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(3)) and California Wage Order 10’s carnival-ride-operator exemption to defeat Plaintiffs’ wage claims; Plaintiffs move to reject both exemptions as a matter of law.
- The court held that (1) the Beaverton central office is not the relevant FLSA "establishment," (2) factual disputes remain whether individual carnivals (or units) are the relevant establishments and whether Plaintiffs were employed "by" an exempt amusement establishment, and (3) under California Wage Order 10 full‑time carnival ride operators remain exempt from overtime but are NOT exempt from minimum wage or penalties; factual questions remain whether Plaintiffs were "full‑time carnival ride operators."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the relevant FLSA "establishment" is the Beaverton central office (or another central unit) vs. individual carnivals | The business is inherently mobile; "establishment" should be the highest integrated unit (Beaverton), so exemption doesn't apply | Each discrete carnival (or local unit) is a separate establishment and Plaintiffs were employed by those amusement establishments, so the exemption can apply | Court: Beaverton office is not the relevant establishment as a matter of law; but whether individual carnivals or local units are the relevant establishments is a factual question — summary judgment denied on that broader issue |
| Whether Plaintiffs were employed "by" an amusement establishment (vs. merely working "in" one) under §213(a)(3) | Plaintiffs performed enterprise-wide work (e.g., maintenance at central yard) and may have worked in non-amusement activities; thus they may be "in" not "by" the establishments | Defendant points to job titles and applications (Amusement & Recreation Attendant) and contends Plaintiffs performed ride-operator duties for the carnivals | Court: Material facts exist about actual duties (e.g., Doe II’s maintenance work); cannot decide on summary judgment whether they were employed "by" the carnivals |
| Whether Defendant met the FLSA receipts/seasonality test for the amusement exemption (≤7 months or receipts 6‑month ratio) | Plaintiffs challenge Defendant’s accountant’s use of revenues (and proportional allocation) rather than "receipts" and raise factual disputes about the calculations | Defendant produced accountant declarations and ratios showing compliance with the §213(a)(3) receipts test | Court: Evidence is insufficiently developed to resolve the receipts/seasonality question at summary judgment — denied to both parties |
| Scope of California Wage Order 10 exemption for "full‑time carnival ride operators" (minimum wage, overtime, penalties) | Plaintiffs: 2001 Wage Order removed minimum-wage exemption; Section 1(F)’s "Except as provided in Sections 1,2,4,10,20" means carnival operators are not exempt from minimum wage or penalties | Defendant: The phrase does not eliminate exemption from minimum wage; carnival operators remain exempt from some Wage Order provisions | Court: Interpreting Wage Order 10‑2001, the listed exception means carnival ride operators are exempt from overtime but are NOT exempt from minimum wage and penalties; however whether Plaintiffs are "full‑time carnival ride operators" is a factual question — summary judgment mixed (minimum‑wage claim for Plaintiffs granted; overtime exemption potentially applies but factual dispute remains) |
Key Cases Cited
- A.H. Phillips v. Walling, 324 U.S. 490 (statutory "establishment" refers to a distinct physical place of business; exemptions narrowly construed)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (agency interpretations given weight under circumstances)
- Mitchell v. Kroger Co., 248 F.2d 985 (employee working in an establishment but employed by another not entitled to exemption)
- Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 155 F.3d 828 ("receipts" means money actually received; accrual allocations may not satisfy §213(a)(3))
- Brennan v. Yellowstone Park Lines, 478 F.2d 285 (central/enterprise employees performing enterprise-wide functions are outside establishment exemption)
- Gieg v. DDR, Inc., 407 F.3d 1038 (departments engaged in separate business endeavors not within exemption)
- Chen v. Major League Baseball, 6 F.Supp.3d 449 (temporary fan-festival can be an "establishment" for exemption analysis)