BUZZELL, JR. v. FLORIDA KEYS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. et al, No. 4:2019cv10190 - Document 83 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 6/13/2022. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UN ITED STATE S D ISTR ICT C O U RT SO U TH ER N D ISTR ICT O F FL O RID A K EY W EST DIV ISIO N CA SE NO .4:19-cv-10190-JLK STEPHEN B UZZELL,JR . on behalfofhim selfand otherssim ilarly situatedtmder29U.S.C.216(b), Plaintiff, FLO RIDA KEY S A M BU LAN CE SERVICE,IN C. and EDW A RD BON ILLA , D efendants. O R DE R D ENY IN G CR O SS M OTIONS FOR SUM M ARY JUDGM ENT (DE 66.68) THIS CAUSE isbeforetheCourton theparties'cross-motionsforsulumaryjudgment. Plaintiffs'Motion forPartialSummary JudgmentwasfiledApril7,2022 (DE 66).Defendants' Motion forSummary JudgmentwasfiledApril7,2022 (DE 68).The Courthasalso considered theResponseandReplybriefs(DE 72,74,79,80),eachparty'sStatementofM aterialFacts(DE 67,69,73,75,81),andthepertinentportionsoftherecord. 1. BACK GR OUND Plaintiffs,asaclass,aresuing Defendantsforunpaid overtime wagesundertheFairLabor BUZZELL, JR. v. FLORIDA KEYS AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. et al Doc. 83 StandardsAct(ûûFLSA'')on November 1,2019.DE 1.Plaintiffsworked ason-callemergency medicalteclmicians(ç$EMTs'')andparamedicsduring theiralleged employmentforDefendants between therelevantperiod ofNovember2016through November2019.See DE 67!!42-46. Plaintiffsclaim they azeentitled to com pensation fortheirtime spentkton-call.''DE 1.Now,both Partieshavemovedfk orsummaryjudgment. Dockets.Justia.com Il. LEG AL STA NDARD Sulnmaryjudgmentisappropriatewherethereislknogenuineissueastoanymaterialfact and Uthemovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);Anderson v.fibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,247-48(1986).Anissueisgenuineifareasonablejuzy could return averdictforthenonmovingparty. M izev.Jeyerson Cf/.y##.ofEduc.,93F.3d 739,742 (1lthCir.1996). A factismaterialifitmay affecttheoutcomeofthecaseundertheapplicable substantivelaw.Allenv.TysonFoods,Inc.,121F.3d642,646(11th Cir.1997). lfa reasonable facttinder could draw m ore than one inference from the facts,creating a genuineissueofmaterialfact,summaryjudgmentshouldnotbegranted.Samplesexrel.Samples v.City ofAtlanta,846 F.2d 1328,1330 (11th Cir.1988). Themoving party hastheblzrden of establishingboththeabsenceofagenuineissueofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtojudgment as a m atter of law . See M atsushita Elec.Indus.Co.,Ltd.v.Zenith Radio Corp.,475 U .S.574, 586-87 (1986).On a motion for sttmmary judgment,the courtviews the evidence and a11 reasonable inferencesin the lightm ostfavorable to the non-m oving party.D avis v.W illiam s,451 F.3d 759,763(11th Cir.2006). 111. DISCU SSIO N In moving for summary judgment, Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgmentbecause(1)Plaintiffsarenottûemployees''undertheFairLaborStandardsActand (2) Plaintiffs have failed to establish the elem ents of their overtim e claim s as a m atter of law and Plaintiffs'lûon-call''tim e is notcom pensable.DE 68.R aising sim ilarissues,Plaintiffs argue that theyhaveestablishedtheelementsontheirovertimeclaims,andthey areentitledtojudgmentin theirfavorasamatteroflaw.SeeDE 66.However,theargumentsand statementsoffactpresented by each sidecreate issuesoffactthatmustberesolved by thejtlry attrial,notby the Courton summaryjudgment.Assuch,summazyjudgmentfOrbothpartiesisdenied. A . IndependentContractor vs.Em ployee The FLSA does notapply to independentcontractors.See M urray v.Playmaker Servs. LLC,512F.Supp.2d 1273,1276(S.D.Fla.2007).Rather,theFLSA onlyappliestoûûemployees,'' whichareklindividualls)employedbyarlemployer.''29U.S.C.j203(e)(1).W hetheranindividual qualifesasarlemployee orindependentcontractorisaquestion of1aw fortheCourt.Antenorv. D d:S Farms,88 F.3d 925,929 (11th Cir.1996).Accordingly,courtslook to the ûseconomic reality'' of the relationship between the parties and whether the relationship dem onstrates dependence.SeeScantland v.Jefhy Knight,Inc.,721F.3d 1308,1311(11th Cir.2013);seealso Bartelsv.Birmingham,332 U.S.126,130 (1947)(sçlElmployeesarethosewho asamatterof economicrealityaredependentuponthebusinesstowhichtheyrenderselwice.'').Thetseconomic realities test''includes six factors,discussed in detailbelow .N o single factor is dispositive,and courtsmay considerany com bination offactorsthataccurately retlectstheeconomicreality ofthe relationship.M urray,512 F.Supp.2d at 1277. 1. Control The firstfactorconsiders the degree Ofthe alleged em ployer'scontroloverthe m nnner in which work isto be performed.ltcontrolisonly significantwhen itshowsan individualexerts such a controlovera m eaningfulpartofthebusinessthatshe standsasa separate econom ic entity.'' Scantland,721F.3d at1313 (emphasisadded)(quoting User.yv.Pilgrim Equip.Co.,Inc.,527 F.2d 1308,1312-13 (5th Cir.1976:.The Courtconcludesthatgenuine issuesofmaterialfact rem ain asto the extentofD efendants'controlover Plaintiffs'w ork. In the instantcase,D efendantsclaim thatPlaintiffsw ere ableto settheirow n schedule and selected their shifts based on their availability,w ere not required to w ork a certain num ber of shifts,werefreeto work otherjobsandreturn anytimethey wanted.DE 68 at4;DE 69! 5.ln fact, Defendants claim that class representative Plaintiff Buzzell left for over a m onth before returning to work and was not required to notify Defendants he would be absent.1d.! 6. Conversely,Plaintiffs states thatthey were notactually allow ed to choosetheirow n shifts,rather they provided their availability and Defendants would schedule them. DE 73 ! 27-28. Additionally,once Plaintiffs arrived fortheir shif' t,they had to waitto be assigned w ork by the Defendants.1d.!29. Genuine issuesofm aterialfactrem ain asto the nm ountofcontrolexercised by D efendants, supporting denialofsummaryjudgmenton the Cûindependentcontractor''argument.Theparties dispute whetherthey could even choosetheirown shiftsam ong otheraspectsofttcontrol.''Because ofthisdispute,theseargumentsmayberaisedattrialwherethejurywilldecide. 2. O pportunity for Proft orL oss The second factor considersthe alleged em ployee'sopportunity forprotk or lossbased on hisorhermanagerialskill.DefendantsassertthatPlaintiffswere eitherpaid aflatrateof$325 or they werepaid$135tobe on-callfora24-hourperiod.DE 69! 9.Additionally,Plaintiffwere paid a pertrip fee ofbetween $25 and $175 depending on the trip distance.1d.Defendantalso claim s that Plaintiff w ere free to accept other w ork and that their profit or loss w as directly contingenton theiravailability.D E 68 at4-5.ln response,Plaintiffsstate thatthereisno evidence thatPlaintiffshad an opportunity forprofitorlossbased on thatfactthatthey w ere hourly w orkers whose w agesdepended on the num berofhoursthey worked.DE 72 at7. TheCourtconcludesthatPlaintiffs'opportunity forprofitorlosswaslargely basedon the nm ount of shifts for which they were scheduled, which suggests an employer-em ployee relationship.However,the Courtfinds that this issue could benefit from a m ore thoroughly developed record and thatgenuine issuesofm aterialfactrem ain,which should be decided attrial. 3. Investm entin Equipm entor M aterials The third factor considers the alleged em ployee'sdegree ofinvestmentin equipm entor m aterials.Plaintiffsclaim thatthereisno evidenceto suggestthatPlaintiffswererequized toobtain their ow n equipm ent orm aterials.D E 72 at 7.Rather,Plaintiffs claim they w ere required in the employee handbook to maintain Defendants' equipm ent and replenish the ambulance with matedalsfrom suppliesatthe station.Id.;DE 73! 70.Defendantprovidesno evidence to the contrary,so the Courtfinds this factorw eighs in favor of em ployee status.H ow ever,this factor could benetk from a m ore thoroughly developed record. 4. SpecialSltill The fourth factor considers the nm ount of special skillrequired to com plete the alleged employee'sdutiesand tasks.Defendantsstate thatPlaintiffswererequired to havetheirow'n state certificationsand licensesto work asEM TSand paramedics.DE 69 ! 3.Plaintiffswere also required to use these certifications and licenses to determ ine w hat m edicalassistance a patient needed and provideotheraspectsofpatientcare.ld ! 4.Because Defendantsdid notprovide Plaintiffsw ith those necessary skills,D efendantsargue thatPlaintiffsw ere notem ployees.D E 68 at5.In response,Plaintiffsclaim thatDefendantsmadethesecertiticationsand licensesajob requirementanddidnottreatthePlaintiffsasindependententities.DE 72at7;DE 73!40.Overall, thisfactorweighsin favorofindependentcontractorstatus.H ow ever,the Courtfindsthatadispute offactualissuesremainsonthispointprecludingsummaryjudgment. 5. Perm anence and D uration The fifth factor considers the perm anence and duration of the alleged em ploym ent relationship.Here,Plaintiffs worked for Defendants from Novem ber 2016 through November 2019.SeeDE 67!!42-46.DefendantsstatethatclassrepresentativePlaintiffBtlzzellleftforover onemonthwithoutnotifyingDefendantsbeforeherettlrnedandstartedselectingshiftsagain(DE !6),suggesting thatPlaintiffswereindependentcontractorsbecausethey werenotconsistently em ployed by Defendants. H owever, Plaintiffs argue that the em ployee m anual that governed Plaintiffsrequized them to obtain coverage or Ctbe considered A W O L''ifthey failed to calloutof anassignedshiftandweresubjecttosuspension formissingthreeormoreassigned shifts.DE 73 !!34-35.BecausethepartiesdisputewhetherPlaintiffswerefreetostopworkingatanytimeand had the opportunity to take on otherjobs,genuine issuesofmatelialfactremain precluding sllmmaryjudgment. 6. lntegralPartofA lleged Em ployer'sBusiness The sixth and finalfactorconsidersthe extentto w hich thealleged em ployee'sservices are integraltotheallegedemployer'sbusiness.ûtgW lhenthebusiness'scontinuationdependsintegrally upon theperfonnanceofcertain work,the workerwhoperformsthatworkismorelikely to be considered an em ployee and notan independentcontractor.''Zouaiv.Evans,Case N o:14-23936- CIV-M ORENO,2015W L 4768293,at*4(S.D.Fla.Aug.11,2015)(emphasisadded). This factorw eighsin favorofem ployee statusin the instantcase.There isno evidence in the record suggesting thatDefendantscould com plete a callforem ergency m edicaltransportation withoutthe EM TS and parnmedics to provide these services.The testis whether the services rendered are integral,notwhetherthe employeehimselfisintegralto thebusiness.lIn any event, this factorcould benefitfrom a m ore thoroughly developed record. 7. W eighing the Factors Based on the factors set forth above, the Courtfinds that num erous genuine issues of material fact preclude slzmmary judgment on thisargllment.The determination of whether PlaintiffswereemployeesofDefendantsismoreappropriatelydecided byajuly attrial. B. O vertim e Claim Defendantsalso move forsummaryjudgmenton Plaintiffs'claimsforovertimewages, arguingthatsummaryjudgmentiswarrantedevenifPlaintiffsareemployeesbecausetheydidnot m eettheelem entsoftheirovertimeclaims.Conversely,Plaintiffsm oveforsum mary on thispoint arguing thatthey have m etthe elem ents oftheirclaim s.Upon consideration,and being otherwise fullyadvised,theCourtconcludesthatbothmotionsforsummaryjudgmentonPlaintiffs'overtime claim s should be denied. TheFairLaborStandardsActrequiresem ployersto provideovertim ecom pensation atthe rateofûltime and ahalf'to employeesforallhotlrsworked beyond forty hoursin a given week. 29U.S.C.j207(a)(1).Anemployeeçfhastheburdenofprovingthatheperformedworkforwhich he w as not properly com pensated.''Anderson v.M t.Clem ens Pottery Co.,328 U .S.680, 687 (1946).W hetheremployeesareworkingduringon-callperiodsforpumosesoftheFLSA tûdepends onthedegreetowhichtheemployeemayusethetimeforpersonalactivities.''Birdwellv.Cityof Gadsen,970 F.2d 802,807 (11th Cir.1992).Timewherean employee istûengaged towait''is 1llcoul'tshaveroutinelynotedthatthepresenceofexoticdancersgislessential,orobviously very im portant,to the success ofa toplessnightclub.''M cFeeley v.Jackson St.Entm 't,LLC,47 F.Supp.3d260,273(D.M d.2014)(internalquotationsomitted).Courtshaveheldexotic dancersto be employeesdespite theirservicesbeing easily perfonned by otherindividualswith sim ilarskillsets.The service itselfisw hat'sintegralto the business.So too here. com pensable tim e under the FLSA ,and tim e thatan em ployee is tlwaiting to be engaged''is not compensabletimeundertheFLSA.Rodriguezv.Careylntern.,lnc.,2004W L 5582173at*4(S.D. Fla.Sept.15,2004). D efendants argue thatPlaintiffs tim e spenton-callw as notseverely lim ited and Plaintiffs w ere ableto engage in m eaningfulpersonalpursuits.DE 68 at6. D efendantscontend thatthe only restrictions on Plaintiffs'on-calltim e w as thatthey could notdrirtk alcoholand had to respond to the calls w ithin 30 m inutes.1d. O n the other hand, Plaintiffs argue that their on-call tim e is compensabledueto thenatlzreofthework (which requiredPlaintiffstobeprepared to givelife- savinginterventionsandmedicaltreatmentl;geographicrestrictionsandshortcallresponsetimes' , callfrequency and duration;restrictionsregarding w earing uniformsand Plaintiffs'ability to sleep; andthedisciplinary actionsresultingfrom refusingtorespondtoacallwhich a1lseverelyrestdcted theirtim e w hile on-call.D E 66 at 13-16. PlaintiffsstatethatDefendantsdiscotlragedEM TSfrom engaging in personalactivitiesand provided sleeping quartersforon-callem ployeesbecause som e em ployeeslived faraw ay from the station.DE 67!!32,41.Plaintiffsclaim theirtimewasrestricted in thatthey could notattend doctors'appointm ents,careforchildren,entertain guests,goto them ovies,orscheduledeliveries orrepairsattheirhome.Id !66,67.However,DefendantsstatethatPlaintiffswerefreetogoto the m ovies,go diving,go to the shooting range,go outto dinner,play video gam es,and sleep duringtheiron-calltime.DE 68at6,DE 69! 12.Defendantsalso assertthatPlaintiffswerefree toswitchthecallforanotherunitifthey could notmakethecallwithin30minutes.Id.;DE 69! 11.Therefore,the Courtfinds thatthere are stillgenuine issues ofm aterialfact,w hich should be decidedattrialandsummaryjudgmentforbothpartiesshouldbedenied. 8 A ccordingly,itisO R D ERED ,AD JU D G ED ,and D ECR EED thatPlaintiffs'M otion for PartialSummaryJudgment(DE 66)be,andthesameis,herebyDENIED. lt is further O R DER ED and AD JUD G ED that Defendants' M otion for Sum m ary Judgment(DE 68)isherebyDENIED. D O N E A N D O R D ER ED in Cham bers at the Jam es Law rence King Federal Justice Building and U nited States Courthouse,M iam i,Florida this 13th day ofJtm e,2022. t A M ES LA W REN E K IN G UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT JUD G cc: A IIcounselofrecord 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
