Specht v. City of Sioux Falls
639 F.3d 814
8th Cir.2011Background
- Firefighters sued the City of Sioux Falls for FLSA overtime for time worked on a State wildfire deployment.
- District court granted summary judgment, applying the special detail exemption under 29 U.S.C. § 207(p)(1) due to voluntariness and separate-entity status.
- The City-State Fire Suppression Agreement designates the City as CONTRACTOR and details reimbursement of wage expenses, including overtime.
- Deployment began in July 2006 with volunteers selected from a roster; six firefighters deployed and monitored for pay.
- Firefighters alleged manipulated time records and underpayment of overtime; grievance denied; case was appealed to determine exemption applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deployment was truly voluntary under §7(p)(1). | Specht argues deployment was not voluntary due to list mechanics and potential compulsion. | City asserts voluntariness evidenced by some firefighters declining participation. | Voluntariness satisfied; defendants failed to show lack of genuine voluntariness. |
| Whether the City was the actual employer during deployment (separate-and-independent employers). | Firefighters contend the State directed work hours, suggesting the State was the employer. | City argues the State and City are separate; control factors are uncertain and multifactor; exemption may apply. | Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding who was the employer; remand needed. |
| Whether §7(p)(1) applies when deployment occurred during the firefighters' regular shifts and is thus not strictly off-duty hours. | Off-duty requirement and case law suggest non-application of exemption. | Exemption may apply where outside employment occurs and two employers are separate. | Off-duty-hours interpretation is a factor, not sole determinant; issues of fact remain. |
| Whether the employment relationship is established by the City-State Agreement, indicating the City as employer. | Agreement terms imply City bears wage expenses and controls personnel. | Agreement is consistent with separate employers for purposes of §7(p)(1). | Material facts exist to challenge the district court’s conclusion; remand appropriate. |
| Whether the occasional and sporadic exemption under §7(p)(2) applies and was properly considered. | Issue of law turned on who employed the firefighters; remand to consider §7(p)(2) eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357 (8th Cir. 1993) (employer-employee relationship broadly defined; exemptions require clear proof)
- Nolan v. City of Chicago, 125 F. Supp. 2d 324 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (case on separate and independent employers for special detail exemption)
- Barajas v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kan. City, 87 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Kan. 2000) (genuine issues of material fact about employer status under 7(p)(1))