Stephen Abell v. Sky Bridge Resources
16-5990
| 6th Cir. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Sky Bridge Resources (Louisville) contracted IT consultants (Plaintiffs) to work on temporary assignments at Kindred client sites; employees typically flew out Monday and returned Friday.
- Each plaintiff signed a near-identical Employment Agreement promising pay for "hours worked" at a stated hourly rate and stating they were not entitled to any other compensation or benefits.
- Sky Bridge maintained a policy classifying in‑air travel as "Hours Traveled" paid at half the usual hourly rate; employees separately recorded "Hours Worked" and "Hours Traveled."
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, FLSA, and Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (KWHA) violations, alleging underpayment for travel time; the district court granted summary judgment for Sky Bridge.
- The Sixth Circuit majority affirmed in part and reversed in part: it reversed as to plaintiff Spaulding’s breach‑of‑contract claim (fact issues exist) and Spaulding’s related KWHA claim; it affirmed summary judgment for the other plaintiffs on contract and most statutory claims and remanded limited KWHA issues for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employment Agreement unambiguously requires full pay for travel time | "Hours worked" plainly includes travel time; contract thus requires full pay for in‑air travel | Agreement is silent/ambiguous about travel; parties’ conduct (half‑pay practice) shows assent | Contract ambiguous; extrinsic evidence controls. Summary judgment reversed for Spaulding (unique evidence of promise/payment); affirmed for other plaintiffs. |
| Whether extrinsic evidence (parties’ conduct) can be used or contra proferentem must control | If ambiguous, interpret for Plaintiffs and apply contra proferentem against drafter | Contemporaneous construction (parties’ conduct) shows mutual understanding to pay half for travel | Court used extrinsic evidence (contemporaneous construction). Contra proferentem unnecessary where extrinsic evidence exists. |
| Whether Plaintiffs are entitled under FLSA/KWHA to compensation for clerical work performed during travel | Plaintiffs worked (clerical) while traveling; such time must be paid | Plaintiffs waived this argument below; evidence is vague and factbound | Claim waived on appeal; not considered because factual and not raised below. |
| Whether travel hours during regular workday must be counted toward overtime under KWHA (and FLSA) | Travel that cuts across workday must be counted toward 40‑hour overtime; factual dispute about plaintiffs’ "regular workday" | Plaintiffs’ workday began at client site; travel occurred outside workday and thus not compensable; Sky Bridge paid some travel pay so no damages | FLSA overtime claims waived/abandoned by Plaintiffs. On KWHA, court (majority) affirmed for most plaintiffs but remanded because factual issues remain about regular workday and weighted overtime calculations; Judge Batchelder would have affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keller v. Miri Microsystems LLC, 781 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.) (summary judgment standard)
- Schaefer v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 358 F.3d 394 (6th Cir.) (summary judgment standard application)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (choice‑of‑law: apply state law)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply state substantive law)
- Journey Acquisition–II, L.P. v. EQT Prod. Co., 830 F.3d 444 (contract ambiguity standard)
- A. L. Pickens Co. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 650 F.2d 118 (contemporaneous construction / parties’ conduct in contract interpretation)
- Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (definition of "principal activities" under Portal‑to‑Portal Act)