newton v. schwarzenegger, defendant's reply to motion for summary judgment and/or partial summary...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
1/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DAVID W. TYRA, SBN 116218KRISTIANNE T. SEARGEANT, SBN 245489KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARDA Law Corporation400 Capitol Mall, 27th FloorSacramento, California 95814Telephone: (916) 321-4500Facsimile: (916) 321-4555E-mail: [email protected]
LINDA A. MAYHEW, Chief Counsel(A), SBN 155049WARREN C. STRACENER, Dep. Chief Counsel, SBN 127921WILL M. YAMADA, Labor Relations Counsel, SBN 226669DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION1515 S Street, North Building, Suite 400Sacramento, CA 95811-7258Telephone: (916) 324-0512Facsimile: (916) 323-4723E-mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants/RespondentsGovernor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGERDEBBIE ENDSLEY, MATTHEW CATE, BERNARDWARNER and STEPHEN MAYBERG
Exempted from Fees(Gov. Code 6103)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
RICHARD T. NEWTON; FRANK M.MCNEAL; and SEAN A. BEATON,
Plaintiffs/Petitioners,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,
Defendants/Respondents.
CASE NO. 3:09-cv-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TOPLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TOMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTAND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT
Date: January 13, 2011Time: 10:00 a.m.
Ctrm: 6, 17th FloorChief Judge Vaughn R. Walker
Complaint Filed: December 16, 2009
///
///
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page1 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
2/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
- i - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................................... ii
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
II. ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................................2
A. Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Should Be Granted BecauseThere Is No Dispute Of Material Fact Establishing The Courts Lack OfJurisdiction Over This Matter..................................................................................2
1. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs expressly limited their challenge tothe now expired furlough programs implemented after issuance ofExecutive Orders S-16-08 and S-13-09.......................................................2
2. Defendants have not waived their immunity from suit................................3
B. Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Should Be Granted BecauseThere Is No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Establishing Plaintiffs Were
Not Compensated For All Hours Worked ...............................................................41. In addition to fully compensating employees for all hours worked,
the States monthly assignment of furlough leave hours is anotherallowable form of compensation under the FLSA.......................................6
C. Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Should Be Granted BecauseThere Is No Genuine Dispute Of Material Fact Establishing PlaintiffsStanding To File Suit For FLSA Record Keeping Violations.................................9
III. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................11
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page2 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
3/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
- i i - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FEDERAL CASES
Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.,328 U.S. 680 (1946).............................................................................................................9, 10
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837 (1984)...................................................................................................................8
Christensen v. Harris County,529 U.S. 576 (2000)...............................................................................................................8, 9
Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2000).........................................................3
EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co.,
499 U.S. 244 (1991)...................................................................................................................8
Elwell v. Univ. Hosps. Home Care Servs.,
276 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................10
Hill v. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland,
179 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1999) .....................................................................................................3
IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez,
546 U.S. 21 (2005)...................................................................................................................10
Johns v. Stewart,
57 F.3d 1544 (10th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................3
Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc.,975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................3
Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n,499 U.S. 144 (1991)...................................................................................................................8
Parker v. City of New York,
2008 WL 2066443 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)..................................................................................7, 8, 9
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) .............................................3, 4
Powell v. Florida,
132 F.3d 677 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 916 (1998)..........................................10
Reno v. Koray,
515 U.S. 50, 132 L. Ed. 2d 46, 115 S. Ct. 2021 (1995).............................................................8
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page3 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
4/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
- iii - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. South Trust Bank of Alabama, NA,
315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................3
Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,323 U.S. 134, 89 L. Ed. 124, 65 S. Ct. 161 (1944)....................................................................8
Verizon Maryland Inc., v. Public Service Commn of Maryland, et al.,535 U.S. 635 (2002)...................................................................................................................2
STATE CASES
Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger,
50 Cal.4th 989 (2010)....................................................................................................1, 4, 5, 6
FEDERAL STATUTES
29 U.S.C. 211........................................................................................................................10, 11
29 U.S.C. 215..............................................................................................................................10
RULES
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)..........................................................................................3
REGULATIONS
29 Code of Federal Regulations 553.28 ...........................................................................6, 7, 8, 9
29 Code of Federal Regulations 778.315 .................................................................................5, 6
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page4 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
5/15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
6/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 2 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
a heightened standard should be applied to furlough leave, as opposed to other types of leave like
vacation and compensatory time off, has no basis in the law.
Based on these arguments, as detailed below and in the papers already on file with
this Court, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant summary judgment in this action
in favor of Defendants. Alternatively, Defendants request that this Court summarily adjudicate
each and every claim alleged by Plaintiffs in their complaint in this action.
II.
ANALYSIS
A. Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Should Be Granted Because There IsNo Dispute Of Material Fact Establishing The Courts Lack Of Jurisdiction OverThis Matter.
1. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs expressly limited their challenge to the nowexpired furlough programs implemented after issuance of Executive OrdersS-16-08 and S-13-09.
Plaintiffs concede this Court can only issue declaratory relief against a State
defendant for ongoing and continuous harm. See Pls Opp., Doc # 89 at 13-14. Plaintiffs
further concede that in order to determine whether relief is prospective, the court should conduct
a straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal
law . Pls Opp., Doc # 89 at 14 (quoting Verizon Maryland Inc., v. Public Service Commn of
Maryland, et al., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002)). Here, a straightforward inquiry of Plaintiffs
complaint finds Plaintiffs alleged that the two-day a month furlough program implemented
pursuant to Executive Order S-16-08 expired by its own terms on June 30, 2010. See Pls
Complaint, Doc # 1 at 5. In paragraph 10 of their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the three-day a
month furlough program implemented pursuant to Executive Order S-13-09 also expired by its
own terms on June 30, 2010. Nowhere in Plaintiffs complaint do Plaintiffs allege any violation
of law for the current furlough program implemented after pursuant to Executive Order S-12-10,
nor did Plaintiffs amend their Complaint to include a challenge to the most recent furlough
program.1
1Defendants would be prejudiced if this Court allows Plaintiffs to amend their complaint at
this stage of the proceedings. On April 1, 2010, pursuant to FRCP 26(f), the parties filed with
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page6 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
7/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 3 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2. Defendants have not waived their immunity from suit.
Contrary to Plaintiffs disingenuous claims that Defendants have acted in a way
that is incompatible with an intent to preserve that immunity, (see Pls Opp., at 10) Defendants
asserted Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity as an affirmative defense in its answer.
Ds Answer, Doc # 10 at 7. In paragraphs 1 and 11 of the parties initial joint case management
conference statement, Defendants again asserted its affirmative defenses with respect to the
courts jurisdiction and relief requested in this matter. Doc # 19 at 2, 5. Quite unlike the facts of
the case relied on by Plaintiffs,Hill v. Blind Industries and Services of Maryland, 179 F.3d 754,
758 (9th Cir. 1999), Defendants have made no attempt to litigate the case on the merits and
then assert its immunity. Here, Defendants placed Plaintiffs on notice of their intent to challenge
the courts jurisdiction from the beginning of this suit.
As for Plaintiffs claims that Defendants participation in discovery, by way of
defending deponents and producing requested discovery somehow waived Defendants immunity
ignores the legal principles that defendants generally are not at liberty simply to refuse to
participate in discovery and more importantly that the law requires waiver of immunity to be
express. SeeJohns v. Stewart, 57 F.3d 1544, 1553 (10th Cir. 1995) citingPennhurst State School
& Hosp. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (Thus, any waiver by the state of its Eleventh
Amendment immunity must be unequivocal [citations omitted] a state may waive its Eleventh
Amendment immunity only where stated by the most express language or by such
overwhelming implication from the text [of a state statutory or constitutional provision] as [will]
leave no room for any other reasonable construction. ). No such express waiver occurred here.
this Court a joint scheduling report and case management conference statement wherein theparties agreed that no further amendments to pleadings would be filed. Doc # 19 at 3. Pursuantto Federal Rule of Civil Procedure section 16(b), once a deadline in a scheduling order has passedto amend pleadings, no party is permitted to amend its pleadings absent a showing of good causeand a modification of the scheduling order. FRCP 16(b)(4);Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations,Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 (9thCir. 2000). In order to satisfy the good cause standard, the moving party must demonstratecompelling reasons why an amendment could not have been made earlier. S&W Enterprises,L.L.C. v. South Trust Bank of Alabama, NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page7 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
8/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 4 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
B. Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Should Be Granted Because There IsNo Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Establishing Plaintiffs Were Not CompensatedFor All Hours Worked.
In their motion for summary judgment filed contemporaneously with Defendants
motion, Plaintiffs admit that the complained of furlough programs were implemented as a salary
reduction. See Pls MSJ at 7:12-14, Doc # 77 at 11 (Although the furlough program is actually a
reduction to time worked, it is functionally administered as a reduction to the salary rate used in
the calculation of the pay made to employees. (emphasis added)); see also id. at 7:16-20, Doc #
77 at 11 (To accomplish the functional reduction of the salary rate, and to continue to reflect the
actual appointment or base salary rate for employees, Defendant Department of Personnel
Administration (DPA) established a negative furlough pay differential to be applied to the base
salary rate The furlough pay differential reduces the employees base salary rate to achieve the
furlough pay reduction. (emphasis added)). Plaintiffs also admit in their motion for summary
judgment that compensation reduced by the negative salary differential still yields pay well in
excess of the federal minimum wage. See Pls MSJ at 8:5-11, Doc # 77 at 12. Only in their
opposition to Defendants motion do Plaintiffs belatedly argue that furloughs are not a salary
reduction. Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain their diametrically opposed shift in argument.
Rather, Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish the California Supreme Courts holding inProfessional
Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, supra, 50 Cal.4th 989 by arguing that
Plaintiffs here, unlike those inProfessional Engineers, are unable to utilize furlough leave
because of the 24-hour nature of the correctional facilities and therefore it cannot be interpreted as
a salary reduction. Plaintiffs argument ignores the Courts reasoning.
InProfessional Engineers, the Supreme Court found that through the budget
process, the Legislature approved an across the board salary reduction for State employees.
Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger, supra, 50 Cal.4th 989.
The Court did not distinguish between employees who took self-directed furloughs or those
whose offices were closed on specific days. The Court inProfessional Engineers held that in
enacting the Revised Budget Act of 2008, the Legislature validated the then-existing furlough
program. Professional Engineers, 50 Cal.4th at 1047-1048. The Supreme Court stated that the
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page8 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
9/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 5 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
legislative history of the Budget Act of 2008 makes it abundantly clear the Legislature
contemplated that the reduction in appropriations for employee compensation could be
achieved through the furlough plan that was then in existence. Id. at 1047. The then-existing
furlough program was the furlough program that existed on February 19, 2009. The furlough
program that existed on February 19, 2009, was the program implemented by the DPA pursuant
to Executive Order S-16-08. Thus, the then-existing furlough plan at the time that the
Legislature passed the Revised Budget Act of 2008, and validated the furlough program, included
employees at all state agencies and departments, regardless of whether the employees took self-
directed furlough leave or had assigned office closures.
Plaintiffs go to great lengths to argue that the FLSA requires payment of straight
time wages before payment of overtime wages. Defendants do not dispute that contention. That
contention, however, is not relevant to this suit. Plaintiffs offer no evidence they were not
compensated for straight time hours worked. By reducing the employees salary across the
board, all hours worked were compensated, just at a reduced rate. Plaintiffs convoluted
argument that specific straight-time hours worked were not compensated in violation of 29
Code of Federal Regulations section 778.315 is belied by the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in
support of their motion for summary judgment. Linda Matsuda, Bureau Chief for the State
Controllers Office, testified that the furlough program resulted in a negative percentage-based
differential being applied to employees base pay. See Ex. 7 to Decl. of Jim Harrison, Doc # 78-
7 at 10. Ms. Matsuda also testified that with respect to the class of Plaintiffs, a lower pay rate
was used as a basis for calculating employees compensation. Id. at 14. She testified that the
rate that the payroll system uses to calculate an employees compensation was changed. Id. at
16. PML 2009-007, issued by the Department of Personnel Administration on February 3, 2009,
also described the administration of the furlough program as an adjustment to the employees
base salary. See Ex. 14 to Decl. of Jim Harrison, Doc # 78-14 at 3. In a February 5, 2009
memorandum from the State Controllers Office, the department tasked with operating the States
payroll, the SCO explains that a pay differential will be added to the employee employment
history (EH) records to reduce the base rate by an average percentage equivalent to the two
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page9 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
10/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 6 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
furlough days. See Ex. 15 to Harrison Decl., Doc # 78-15 at 2.
Defendants implementation of the relevant furlough programs was administered
as an across the board salary reduction for State employees. Plaintiffs pay for straight time hours
is controlled exclusively by the California Legislature. The California Legislature through the
Revised Budget Act of 2008 passed in February 2009 and the Revised Budget Act of 2009 passed
in July 2009 reduced the straight time pay for all state employees including those employees who
participate in self-directed furloughs. Professional Engineers in California Government v.
Schwarzenegger, supra, 50 Cal.4th 989. These reductions enacted by the Legislature modified
the pay provided to Plaintiffs for straight time hours and constitutes the new applicable statute
referenced in 29 Code of Federal Regulations section 778.315. Plaintiffs offer no evidence that
specific hours worked went uncompensated. Defendants motion for summary judgment should
be granted because there are no disputed material facts establishing Plaintiffs were not paid for all
hours worked.
1. In addition to fully compensating employees for all hours worked, the Statesmonthly assignment of furlough leave hours is another allowable form ofcompensation under the FLSA.
Plaintiffs err in contending 29 Code of Federal Regulations section 553.28 is
limited only to non-statutory or contractual overtime or only for hours outside their regular work
schedule. Pls Opp. at 13:11-16; 14:5-10, Doc # 89 at 17-18. Such an interpretation ignores the
plain language of the regulation and is unsupported by any authority limiting the section in such a
manner. Section 553.28(c) provides other compensatory time may be paid for hours earned
and accrued in excess of a standard established by the personnel policy or practice of any
employer, or by custom[.] Nowhere in subsection (c) does the regulation limit such hours
worked to overtime hours or hours in excess of a regular work schedule. The fact that Plaintiffs
illustrated its argument with a single mere example drawn from a secondary source, while failing
to provide any case or statutory authority to support its argument, demonstrates that Plaintiffs
argument lacks legal support. Pls Opp. at 13, fn. 6, Doc # 89 at 17.
Section 553.28s plain meaning cannot be interpreted as narrowly as Plaintiffs
contend. To the contrary, the hours Plaintiffs spent working their allegedly unpaid straight time
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page10 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
11/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 7 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
hours falls squarely within section 553.28, subdivision (c) because those hours were worked in
excess of the furlough policys reduced work schedule. Plaintiffs contend that section 553.28
does not apply because Plaintiffs work schedules did not change from the schedule they worked
prior to the furlough policys implementation. Pls Opp. at 14:26-28, Doc # 89 at 14. While the
schedule may not have changed, the fact remains that Plaintiffs worked in excess of the reduced
work schedule implemented by Defendants furlough policy. Plaintiffs themselves acknowledge
Plaintiffs worked full schedules during the furlough program, despite the fact the furlough
program implemented a reduction in work hours. Pls MSJ at 9:1-2, 17:9, Doc # 77 at 13, 21.
In evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs
rely on a series of documents produced by DPA and the SCO regarding the implementation of
furlough programs. PML 2009-007, issued on February 3, 2009, explains that [f]or posted
positions in 24/7 facilities: management will work with employees to determine which two days
in the month will be taken off. When this is not operationally feasible and would jeopardize
security, health or safety, management will work with employees to select time off in the future.
However, deferring furlough days for future use shall only be done after all other options have
been evaluated and proven unworkable. See Ex. 14 to Harrison Decl., Doc # 78-14 at 2.
Whether or not the hours at issue are deemed overtime or are hours worked outside of a regular
schedule, no dispute exists that the hours at issue in this case were worked in excess of
Defendants personnel policy or practice. Accordingly, section 553.28 authorizes providing for
such hours in the form of other compensatory time.
Second, contrary to Plaintiffs contention, section 553.28 applies even when
overtime is worked in the same work period. Pls Opp. at 16:1, Doc # 89 at 20. Plaintiffs offer
no authority to support its contention that section 553.28 is inapplicable during work periods
where overtime was worked. Pls Opp. at 4:15-18, Doc # 89 at 8. InParker v. City of New York,
the Southern District Court of New York determined that the defendant appropriately paid
plaintiffs in the form of other compensatory time for non-overtime hours between 35 and 40 per
workweek, even in workweeks where statutory overtime was worked. Parker v. City of New
York, 2008 WL 2066443, *2-6 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The plaintiffs inParkeralleged that non-
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page11 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
12/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 8 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
overtime hours worked should have been paid in the form of cash when overtime was worked in
the same workweek. Id. at 1. TheParkercourt found that payment of other compensatory time
for the plaintiffs non-overtime hours worked was permissible, even when overtime was worked
in the same workweek, stating, the Court finds that [29 C.F.R.] Section 553.28, read in its
entirety, supports the position that the FLSA permits but does not require the use of compensatory
time as compensation for gap-time hours in overtime workweeks. Id. at 4
Plaintiffs reliance upon DOL Opinion Letter FLSA 2004-10 is also unavailing
because the Opinion Letter, ostensibly discussing a minimum wage matter, made mere
conclusory statements about the form of compensation for non-overtime hours worked. The
Opinion Letters main focus discussed an employers obligation to comply with the FLSAs
minimum wage requirements for non-overtime hours worked, and merely concluded, in dicta and
without any analysis, that straight time compensation should be paid in cash. Furthermore, the
Opinion Letter contains no discussion of the effect of section 553.28.
The DOLs interpretation of its own federal regulations is not entitled Chevron-
style deference. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837
(1984); see Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000) (Here, however, we
confront an interpretation contained in an [DOL] opinion letter, not one arrived at after, for
example, a formal adjudication or notice-and-comment rulemaking. Interpretations such as those
in opinion letters do not warrant Chevron-style deferenceInstead, interpretations contained
in formats such as opinion letters are entitled to respect under our decision in Skidmore v. Swift
& Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 89 L. Ed. 124, 65 S. Ct. 161 (1944), but only to the extent that those
interpretations have the power to persuade, ibid. (citingReno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61, 132 L.
Ed. 2d 46, 115 S. Ct. 2021 (1995);EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 256-258,
(1991); Martin v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 157 (1991); 1
K. Davis & R. Pierce, Administrative Law Treatise 3.5 (3d ed. 1994))). In fact, addressing the
same opinion letter cited by Plaintiffs here, and indeed, the same language quoted in Plaintiffs
Opposition, theParkercourt expressly declined to defer to the DOLs interpretation, finding the
opinion letters conclusory statements related to the form of compensation for non-overtime
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page12 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
13/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 9 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
hours worked were unpersuasive because section 553.28 is unmistakably and unambiguously
permissive rather than mandatory. See Christensen, 529 U.S. at 587-88 (declining to defer to
DOL's interpretation of a regulation contained in an opinion letter where DOL interpreted a
permissive regulation as prohibiting a mandatory compensatory time usage policy). Parker,
2008 WL 2066443 at *5.
Finally, Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of its proposition that section 553.28
is limited only to contractual overtime hours. Plaintiffs near-verbatim recitation of a single
example of other compensatory time from a non-current edition of a privately published book
on the Fair Labor Standards Act cannot substitute for the plain wording of the regulation, or be
interpreted as a mandatory, blanket limitation upon the compensation permitted by section
553.28. Pls Opp. at 13 n. 6, Doc # 89 at 17 (citing The FLSA Users Manual, 3d Ed. by Will
Aitchison (2002) at 161-64).
Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants dispute that some Plaintiffs worked overtime
hours during the time the furlough policy was in effect. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants dispute
that the furlough policy implemented a reduced work schedule program, and, in some instances,
Plaintiffs worked hours in excess of the standard established by that program. However,
Plaintiffs err in contending they were deprived straight time compensation for those excess hours
worked because each hour was compensated, just at a reduce rate, and additionally, Plaintiffs
received compensation for those excess hours in the form of paid time off or other compensatory
time as allowed under section 553.28.
C. Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment Should Be Granted Because There IsNo Genuine Dispute Of Material Fact Establishing Plaintiffs Standing To File SuitFor FLSA Record Keeping Violations.
Plaintiffs Opposition fails to address Defendants underlying contention that
Plaintiffs lack standing to bring an action alleging violation of the FLSAs recordkeeping
requirements. Instead, Plaintiffs merely assert this Court is not precluded from recognizing the
violation if the Court views the instant case from the perspective ofAnderson v. Mt. Clemens
Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946). Pls Opp. at 12:25-27, Doc # 89 at 16. Plaintiffs failure to
address the standing argument, while simultaneously relying on a case that has since been
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page13 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
14/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
GIRARDATTORNEYSAT LAW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 1 0 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
superseded by statute, confirms Plaintiffs inability to seek relief upon its third cause of action.
That Plaintiffs are barred from alleging a violation of the recordkeeping provisions
of 29 United States Code section 211, subdivision (c) is undisputed. The FLSA expressly vests
the Secretary of Labor with the exclusive authority to enforce any alleged violations of the
recordkeeping requirements. Elwell v. Univ. Hosps. Home Care Servs., 276 F.3d 832, 843 (6th
Cir. 2002). Under section 217, the Secretary of Labor is empowered to initiate injunction
proceedings to restrain any violation of 29 United States Code section 215, including section 215,
subdivision (a)(5). Powell v. Florida, 132 F.3d 677, 678 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S.
916 (1998). Section 215(a)(5) makes it unlawful for an employer to fail to comply with the
recordkeeping requirements contained in Section 211, subdivision (c). Id.
Plaintiffs reliance onAnderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946),
to support its recordkeeping argument is inapposite. Notwithstanding thatAnderson has been
superseded by statute2, the Court inAnderson did not discuss the FLSAs recordkeeping
violations as a separate cause of action. Instead, as Plaintiffs Opposition points out, the
Anderson Court merely stated that where the employer failed to maintain accurate records, the
employer cannot object to the lack of precision inherent in the calculation of damages for unpaid
overtime. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 688 (1946). Plaintiffs action for
prospective declaratory relief in the instant case precludes the calculation or award of back-pay.
Moreover, the instant action seeks separate and independent declaratory relief on the FLSAs
recordkeeping statutes. Plaintiffs argument fails because Plaintiffs erroneously conflate a
separate, independent cause of action seeking declaratory relief upon a violation of the FLSAs
recordkeeping provisions with unrelated case authority describing how to calculate back-pay
damages.
Even if Plaintiffs had the right to enforce the FLSA recordkeeping requirements, a
claim Defendants deny, Defendants have not violated any of the requirements under section 211,
subdivision (c). The FLSA requires the following information be maintained as part of an
employees basic records, which include: (1) full name and social security number; (2) address
2SeeIBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 41 (2005)
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page14 of 15
-
8/8/2019 Newton v. Schwarzenegger, Defendant's reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary Judgment
15/15
KRONICK,
MOSKOVITZ,
TIEDEMANN &
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
959402.1 - 1 1 - Case No. 3:09-cv-09-05887-VRW
DEFENDANTS REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
with zip code; (3) birth date if employer is younger than 19; (4) sex and occupation; (5) time and
day of week when employees workweek begins; (6) hours worked each day; (7) total hours
worked each workweek; (8) basis on which employees wages are paid; (9) regular hourly pay
rate; (10) total daily or weekly straight time earning; (11) total overtime earnings for the
workweek; (12) all additions to or deductions from the employees wages; (13) total wages paid
each pay period; and (14) date of payment and the pay period covered by the payment. 29 U.S.C.
211, subd. (c). There is nothing in the statute or case law, which requires the Defendants to
demarcate the corresponding pay period. Accordingly, Defendants motion for summary
judgment and/or partial summary judgment should be granted because Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring this claim
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, State Defendants motion for summary judgment be
granted in its entirety.
Dated: December 30, 2010 KRONICK, MOSKOVITZ, TIEDEMANN & GIRARDA Law Corporation
By: /s/ David W. TyraDavid W. TyraKristianne T. SeargeantAttorneys for Defendants/RespondentsGovernor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,DEBBIE ENDSLEY, MATTHEW CATE,BERNARD WARNER and STEPHEN MAYBERG
Dated: December 30, 2010 DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
By: /s/ Will M. YamadaWill M. YamadaAttorneys for Defendants/RespondentsGovernor ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,DEBBIE ENDSLEY, MATTHEW CATE,BERNARD WARNER and STEPHEN MAYBERG
Case3:09-cv-05887-VRW Document95 Filed12/30/10 Page15 of 15