Parth v. POMONA VALLEY HOSP. MEDICAL CENTER, 630 F.3d 794

PVHMC is a California hospital subject to the FLSA, which requires overtime pay at 1.5x the regular rate for hours over 8 per day or 80 per 14 days.
Nurses could choose a 12-hour shift in exchange for a lower base hourly rate, with time-and-a-half for hours beyond eight and double-time for hours beyond 12; the plan prohibited mandatory additional shifts unless a medical emergency.
In 1993 Parth, a nurse in PVHMC's ER, opted into the 12-hour shift plan after voting to implement it and entered a voluntary reduced-rate agreement (from $22.83 to $19.57) and has worked the 12-hour shifts since 1993.
In 2003 PVHMC and Local 121 negotiated a CBA that kept the 12-hour shift lower base rate but provided across-the-board wage increases for the 8- and 12-hour shifts and reaffirmed the lower rate for 12-hour shifts.
Parth filed a putative FLSA class action about the pay plan; the district court granted summary judgment in PVHMC's favor; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the pay plan did not violate the FLSA.
The court concluded the plan was permissible, not an unlawful artifice to avoid overtime, and that different shift rates for the same job duties can be lawful under the FLSA when minimums and overtime are properly observed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PVHMC’s 12-hour shift plan violates the FLSA	Parth argues the base-rate reduction for 12-hour shifts violates the FLSA	PVHMC contends the plan is allowed if it meets minimum wage and overtime requirements	No violation; plan permitted under FLSA if bona fide and compliant with minimums
Whether the reduced rate is an artificial device to dodge overtime	Parth asserts the reduced rate is artificial and not bona fide	PVHMC argues factors show the rate is bona fide and negotiated, not a subterfuge	Not an impermissible artifice; rate bona fide under the weighed framework and regulations
Whether paying different rates for different shifts is lawful	Parth contends different shift rates for the same work is unlawful	Court should treat shift-based pay differences as permissible if overtime is properly paid	Permissible; shift-based pay differences allowed as long as overtime rules are satisfied

Walling v. Belo Corp., 316 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1942) (pre-FLSA pay plans may reduce base rates if minimums are met)
Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1944) (regular rate cannot be set to evade overtime; anti-artifice rule)
Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., Inc., 325 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1945) (employer free to set regular rate as long as minimums are observed)
Belo v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 316 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1942) (pre-FLSA adjustments to preserve total wages permissible)
Gorman v. Consolidated Edison Co., 488 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 2007) (weighted average method for regular rate upheld)
Brock v. Wilamowsky, 833 F.2d 11 (2d Cir. 1987) (regular rate calculation method discussions)
Allen v. Board of Public Educ., 495 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2007) (shifts may justify different pay rates)
Adams v. Dep’t of Juvenile Justice of New York, 143 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1998) (regular rate not necessarily uniform across contexts)
Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (FLSA protections and employee consent limits)