927 F.3d 43
1st Cir.2019Background
- Port Resources operates group homes using long-term staff who work weeklong shifts (Thursday–Thursday) with four unpaid 4-hour breaks and an 8-hour unpaid nightly "sleep time" governed by a written Sleep Time Agreement.
- Port Resources treats payroll workweeks as Sunday–to–Sunday; each weeklong shift therefore spans two payroll workweeks and the employer did not pay for eight hours of nightly sleep time across those shifts.
- David Giguere sued under the FLSA (as a collective action) and brought individual claims under Maine wage statutes, alleging unpaid overtime because Port Resources excluded scheduled sleep time from compensable hours.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Giguere on the FLSA claim and on his Maine claims, and awarded treble damages under Maine’s Wages Act; both parties appealed.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo, focusing on whether the DOL’s 1988 memorandum interpreting 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 (the live-in employee exception) required measuring the DOL’s "120 hours in a workweek" standard against the employer’s established payroll workweek.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Giguere) | Defendant's Argument (Port Resources) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Port Resources may exclude scheduled sleep time under 29 C.F.R. § 785.23 | Sleep time is compensable because Port Resources' staff do not "reside" on premises for 120 hours in the employer's established workweek | DOL’s 1988 memorandum does not require measuring the 120-hour "extended periods" threshold by the employer’s payroll workweek; other interpretations support Port’s policy | The 1988 DOL memorandum should be read to measure the 120-hour standard by the employer’s established workweek; Port Resources failed to meet the standard, so exclusion was unlawful |
| Standard of deference to DOL interpretations | N/A (relied on DOL interpretation) | Argues Skidmore (or other lesser deference) should apply, undermining DOL's memorandum | Court need not resolve Auer vs Skidmore; even under lesser Skidmore deference, the court adopts DOL’s interpretation as persuasive |
| Whether Maine damages permit both Wages Act treble damages and Minimum Wage Law double damages | Giguere: entitled to both remedies | Port: only Minimum Wage Law applies; allowing Wages Act treble would render Minimum Wage Law superfluous | Both remedies are remedial; Maine law disfavors double recovery, so only one award is proper; district court correctly awarded treble damages under the Wages Act |
| Whether the FLSA liability affects the Maine-law rulings | N/A | Port argued Maine violations depended on federal ruling | Court affirmed Maine rulings without needing to address alternate arguments because FLSA ruling was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (deference to agency interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (U.S. 1944) (agency interpretations entitled to weight depending on persuasiveness)
- Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (U.S. 1946) (workweek includes all time employee is necessarily required to be on premises)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (FLSA remedial purpose protecting workers from overwork and underpay)
- O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003) (the workweek is the basic unit for FLSA overtime analysis)
- Cash v. Cycle Craft Co., 508 F.3d 680 (1st Cir. 2007) (FLSA exemptions construed narrowly in favor of employees)