Farmer v. Ottawa County Sheriff's

Full title: JAMES K. FARMER, Plaintiff, v. OTTAWA COUNTY SHERIFF'S, DEPARTMENT…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 30, 2000

Case No. 1:97-CV-97 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2000)

Opinion

Case No. 1:97-CV-97.

November 30, 2000

OPINION

RICHARD ENSLEN, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on remand from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine the amount of backpay and liquidated damages which shall be increased based upon the 271 hours Plaintiff spent in the field training officer program.

Because this case has been decided and appealed, only a brief summary of the facts are necessary. Plaintiff was a long-term employee of the Ottawa County Sheriff's Department. He initially worked as a road patrol deputy but suffered a work-related injury. He returned to work in a different capacity and later asked to be returned to his position as a road patrol deputy. Defendant told Plaintiff he would be required to complete a training program but no funds were available with which to pay Plaintiff for his time spent in training.

Plaintiff's training program was 292 hours. Plaintiff completed the training while also working at his other job, and after completing the training, was selected for the next available vacancy as a road patrol deputy. Plaintiff then filed a claim for overtime payments for time spent in training pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et. seq.

This Court awarded Plaintiff overtime pay for 19 hours and liquidated damages equal to the amount of Plaintiff's backpay. This Court also awarded Plaintiff attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that Plaintiff's training constituted productive work and is therefore compensable. Defendant cross-appealed, arguing that this Court erroneously determined that Plaintiff trained on days other than those regularly scheduled off and erroneously granted attorney fees, costs, and liquidated damages.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award of attorney fees, costs, and liquidated damages and reversed and remanded regarding the conclusion that Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation.

Hours to be Compensated

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that this Court should determine how many of the 271 hours claimed by Plaintiff should be awarded as backpay and liquidated damages.¹

1 Plaintiff claimed 290 hours of overtime and was awarded 19 hours of overtime pay.

During the course of events, the parties stipulated to facts, including the fact that Plaintiff "devoted 106 hours" of overtime effort. Plaintiff's original 290 hour claim was presumably based on an incorrect calculation that a person was eligible for overtime pay after 40 hours of work in a 7-day period. This Court addressed this issue in its Opinion and Order filed December 16, 1997. This Court's Opinion states that "[a]lthough the general rule under FLSA is that overtime is paid after the first 40 hours worked during a 7-day period, law enforcement employees are subject to a slightly different regulation." Under 29 C.F.R. § 553.230(c), overtime compensation is required for hours worked in excess of 86 hours in a 14-day period. Thus, Plaintiff's current award is based on using 86 hours as the cut off before Plaintiff is eligible for overtime pay in a pay period.

Based on the stipulated facts, Plaintiff worked a total of 79 overtime hours in 1995. Plaintiff already received compensation for 19 of these hours, and is thus entitled to compensation for 60 hours of overtime. In 1995, Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay was $16.15. This results in $1,453.50 overtime pay owed Plaintiff.

In 1996, Plaintiff worked 27 hours of overtime, and his hourly rate of pay was $14.32. On February 25, 1996, Plaintiff participated in 18 hours of training during his hours scheduled at his other job. During the pay period encompassing this date, Plaintiff worked another 72 hours, thus making him eligible for 4 hours of overtime pay. Plaintiff, however, received pay for a total of 90 hours at his straight time rate. As a result, Plaintiff is eligible to receive half-time rate for these 4 hours, and time-and-a-half for the other 23 overtime hours worked in 1996. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to $28.64 for the four hours at half-time rate and $494.04 for the other 23 overtime hours. This totals $522.68 for overtime pay in 1996.²

2 Plaintiff is only receiving overtime pay for 87 hours, the 60 hours in 1995 and the 27 hours in 1996, instead of the 106 stipulated to by the parties because he already received overtime pay for 19 hours.

The total overtime pay to which Plaintiff is entitled is $1,976.18.

Liquidated Damages

Generally, an employer who violates overtime compensation under the FLSA shall be liable for liquidated damages in the amount equal to unpaid back wages. See Herman v. Palo Group Foster Home, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 696, 706 (W.D. Mich. 1997) (quoting Dole v. Elliot Travel Tours, 942 F.2d 962, 967 (6^th Cir. 1991)). A Court may refuse to award liquidated damages only if the employer shows that it acted in good faith and that it had reasonable grounds for believing that it was not violating the FLSA. See Herman, 976 F. Supp. at 706. Previously, this Court awarded liquidated damages because Defendant stated it was "well aware" of the FLSA's provisions and because Defendant did not present grounds that it acted in good faith. Accordingly, this Court now awards Plaintiff liquidated damages of $1,976.18, an amount equal to unpaid backpay.

Increase of Attorney Fees

In its Opinion, the Sixth Circuit also held that this Court could increase the award of attorney fees based upon the increase of the amount Plaintiff recovered. Section 216(b) of the FLSA mandates that a court "allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Although an award of attorney fees is mandatory, the amount awarded is within a District Court's discretion. See United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Ass'n, Local 307 et al. v. G M Roofing and Sheet Metal Co. Inc., 732 F.2d 495, 401 (6^th Cir. 1984).

Plaintiff initially sought $10,551.66, and Plaintiff's attorney also claimed an additional $1,110.90, which was disallowed. This Court awarded $7,069.61 in attorney fees. This Court relied on a Sixth Circuit opinion approving percentage cuts in requested fees as a means of making an appropriate reduction upon consideration of a Plaintiff's limited success. See Allen v. Allied Plaint Maintenance Co. of Tennessee, 881 F.2d. 291, 99-300 (1989). This Court then concluded that a reduction of 33% would result in a "reasonable fee given Plaintiff's success."

Originally, Plaintiff was approximately 6% successful in terms of paid hours sought and received. Plaintiff has since been awarded backpay for 100% of the 106 hours of overtime to which the parties stipulated, and his award of attorney fees should be increased accordingly. Plaintiff initially sought $10,551.66 and received $7,069.61. Therefore, Plaintiff is now entitled to $3,482.05 ($10,551.66 — $7,069.61), and Plaintiff's total award of attorney fees is $10,551.66.

Conclusion

This Court determines that Plaintiff is entitled to a $3,952.36 award for backpay and liquidated damages and a $3,482.05 increase in his attorney fee award.