City paramedics lose in demand for FLSA overtime pay
The following case, Christian v. City of Gladstone, Missouri, 108 F.3d 929 (Missouri) 1997, is used as a resource with permission from the Firestation Lawyer Monthly Newsletter(TM), (ISSN 1086-8674), Vol. 10, No. 8, August 1997, Quinlan Publishing Co., Boston, Massachusetts 02210, (800) 229-2084.
Background:
The city of Gladstone, Missouri, created a public safety department that would unify emergency responses for fires, medical emergencies, and police calls. The department included a fire/EMS bureau with 16 safety officers, all certified firefighters. Christian and six others were also trained paramedics.
The paramedics responded to fire alarms, accident scenes, and medical emergencies. They were available to respond to all fire calls and were dispatched to all confirmed fires and half of all fire alarms. They fought fires when they responded but left when they could, to be available for other calls. Fire alarms made up about 11 percent of their calls, car accidents about nine percent. The remaining calls were other accidents and medical emergencies.
The paramedics worked 24 hours followed by 48 hours off duty, working a total of nine days in a 27-day period.
The Employees` Claims:
Christian and two other paramedics sued the city. They claimed that under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), they were entitled to overtime for the hours they worked over 40 hours each week.
FLSA:
The FLSA generally required employers to pay employees overtime for any hours they worked over 40 each week but included a partial exemption for “any employee in fire protection activities.” Firefighters had to work a total of 212 hours during a 28-day work period before they were entitled to overtime pay.
Federal regulations defined an “employee in fire protection activities” as including any employee who worked for an organized fire department; had been trained as a firefighter; had the legal authority and responsibility to prevent, control, or put out fires; and who performed activities required for or related to preventing or controlling fires. The regulations included “rescue and ambulance service personnel if such personnel form an integral part of the public agency`s fire protection activities.” Another regulation stated firefighters could do other work and remain within the exemption, but if more than 20 percent of the work was “nonexempt activities,” they might be entitled to overtime.
The City`s Contention:
The city argued it didn`t have to pay the paramedics overtime because they fell under the firefighter exemption.
The Court Decision:
The court awarded the paramedics judgment without a trial. It found the city didn`t show the paramedics had a duty to fight fires or that they performed fire suppression and prevention activities. The court also found the paramedics didn`t fall under the exemption because they spent more than 20 percent of their time on activities unrelated to firefighting. The court awarded the paramedics back pay.
The Appeal:
The city appealed, arguing that the court should not have considered the paramedics` time spent on accident and emergency medical calls as nonexempt work.
The lower court should have awarded the city, not the paramedics, judgment. The paramedics had to work more than 212 hours in a 28-day period to get overtime.
The paramedics fell within the FLSA`s partial overtime exemption for firefighters. They were sworn firefighters and responded to 50 percent of all fire alarms, including every confirmed fire. They made up 40 percent of the officers in the fire/EMS bureau and performed fire support services such as equipment maintenance and training.
The time the paramedics spent on activities other than fires or car accidents didn`t exclude them from the firefighter exemption. The paramedics responded to fires, fought them, and provided paramedic services at fires and on calls not involving fires. They spent nearly all their time on such activities, related training, support services, and waiting for calls. Providing services at accidents and medical emergencies didn`t change the nature of their duties. The regulations showed Congress meant to include paramedic and rescue work within the term “fire protection activities.”
