Stubblefield v. Town of West Yellowstone
2013 MT 78
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs are West Yellowstone police officers challenging pre-2009 on-call policy which required on-call time with minimal compensation only for actual call outs, filed as a FLSA claim in 2008.
- Shifts consisted of two weeks with a fixed 84 hours and an on-call requirement for 12 hours before each shift to provide backup for dangerous situations.
- On-call officers were reachable by cell phone; if called out, they received at least 2.5 hours of overtime pay, but otherwise no compensation for on-call time.
- A jury trial in November 2011 resulted in a verdict for the Town; judgment entered December 7, 2011, plaintiffs moved under M.R.Civ.P. 59 to amend or for a new trial in January 2012, denied February 29, 2012.
- Standard of review for Rule 59 motions in sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims is de novo, focusing on substantial credible evidence rather than weighing credibility or re-evaluating the jury’s decision.
- Appellants argue the on-call time was spent primarily for their benefit and should be compensable; appellee Town argues the evidence supports that on-call time was largely for town needs and not primarily for employee benefit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting non-compensability | Stubblefield et al. contend substantial evidence shows on-call time benefited the Town, not employees, rendering it compensable. | Town argues the jury had substantial evidence to find on-call time not primarily for employees' benefit, justifying non-compensability. | Sufficient evidence supports the verdict; not inherently unbelievable. |
| Effect of Sands v. Town of West Yellowstone on this case | Sands is directly analogous; should lead to judgment for plaintiffs or a new trial. | Sands is not identical; distinctions justify affirming the jury verdict. | Sands is distinguishable; affirm the district court's denial of relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (Supreme Court, 1944) (on-call waiting time compensable if primarily for employer's benefit)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court, 1944) (difference between waiting to be engaged vs. engaged)
- Wise v. Ford Motor Co., 284 Mont. 336 (Mont. 1997) (substantial evidence standard; jury credibility deference)
- Campbell v. Canty, 291 Mont. 398 (Mont. 1998) (substantial evidence test; deference to jury)
- Papich v. Quality Life Concepts, Inc., 321 Mont. 156 (Mont. 2004) (substantial evidence standard; scintilla not enough)
- Sands v. Town of W. Yellowstone, 337 Mont. 209 (Mont. 2007) (distinguishing on remand bench trial; not identical fact pattern)