2021 Ohio 2990
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellants Elita One and Troy Ayers worked as EMT paramedics on 24-hour shifts and sued for unpaid overtime for their reemployment period (Mar. 1, 2017 to resignations in 2019).
- EMT’s "Plus Four" handbook policy: employees paid a minimum of 16 hours per 24-hour shift; if called during the 11:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m. sleeping period they are paid actual hours; if a call originates after 11:00 p.m. they receive a 4-hour block (unless the call exceeds 4 hours); full 24 hours paid only if a second call occurs during sleeping period.
- Employees were allowed to sleep at the station during the sleeping period and could use that time freely except for leaving the station or having visitors.
- Plaintiffs were paid under the Plus Four Policy and received overtime for hours over 40, but challenged non-payment for idle (sleep) time as ‘‘hours worked’’ under the FLSA and 29 C.F.R. §785.22.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for EMT, finding plaintiffs had both expressly and impliedly agreed to exclude up to 8 hours of sleeping time and that sleeping facilities were adequate.
- On appeal the court reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding plaintiffs failed to create a genuine factual dispute on agreement and adequacy of facilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an at-will handbook disclaimer prevents an express or implied agreement to exclude up to 8 hours of sleeping time under 29 C.F.R. §785.22(a) | The at-will disclaimer means the handbook cannot create an agreement to exclude sleep time | A handbook disclaimer that preserves at-will status does not preclude enforcing discrete pay policies that do not impede termination rights | Disclaimer did not preclude agreement; parties may agree to exclusion despite at-will language |
| Whether plaintiffs expressly or impliedly agreed to the Plus Four Policy given prior complaints and later rehire/acceptance of pay | Prior protests during first employment preclude finding an implied or express agreement during the rehire period | Plaintiffs knew the policy on rehire, did not object when rehired, accepted paychecks and acknowledgments — supporting express and implied agreement | Court found both an implied agreement (continued work and acceptance without timely protest) and an express agreement (handbook review and signed acknowledgement) |
| Whether sleeping facilities/ability to obtain uninterrupted sleep defeated EMT’s sleeptime exclusion | Plaintiffs contend interruption/insufficient facilities could make sleeping time compensable | EMT showed facilities were provided and plaintiffs could usually obtain uninterrupted sleep; interruptions are compensable but not shown here | Court concluded facilities were adequate and plaintiffs did not show inability to obtain a reasonable night’s sleep during the scheduled period |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (Ohio summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s summary judgment burden and nonmoving party’s reciprocal burden)
- Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100 (1985) (recognition of at-will employment presumption)
- Henkel v. Educ. Research Council of Am., 45 Ohio St.2d 249 (1976) (presumption favoring at-will unless intent to bind appears)
- Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (1991) (handbook disclaimers negate inference of contractual obligation absent fraud)
- Roy v. Cty. of Lexington, 141 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 1998) (employer bears burden to prove sleeptime exclusion; exemption construed narrowly)
- Bodie v. Columbia, 934 F.2d 561 (4th Cir. 1991) (factors bearing on implied agreement to exclude sleep time)