Schuetz v. Gulf Bend Center, No. 6:2015cv00067 - Document 31 (S.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: OPINION on Partial Summary Judgment. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)

Download PDF
Schuetz v. Gulf Bend Center Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED Leland Schuetz, on behalf of himself and all others similarry situated, Plaintiffs, versus Gulf Bend Center, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § July 12, 2016 David J. Bradley, Clerk Civil Action V-I 5-67 Opinion on Partial Summary Judgment I. Background. From 20 I I- 20 14, Leland Schuetz worked as a case manager for GulfB end Center. After some shifts, he had to remain on call. While on call he (a) carried a Gulf Bend cellular phone, (b) could not consume alcohol, and (c) was required to arrive within sixty-minutes at the service location if a patient required a face-to-face meeting. He says that Gulf Bend's large service area required him to respond to calls within seven to eight minutes which prohibited him from making dinner at home or eating in a restaurant, and stopped him from participating in family activities. He also says that he could not spend time in public places because the calls he might have received were confidential. He says that his time was so restricted that he was unable to use it for his own purposes. 2. On Call. On-call time spent by an employee at locations of his choosing is not "working time" when the employer is not called to work. I To be entitled to compensation for idle time, the employee must establish the he had no freedom to use his time how he would have liked. See Bright v. Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc., 934 F.2d 671 (5th Cir.I99 I ). I Dockets.Justia.com Schuetz says that he was unable to spend time in public, cook meals, or meaningfully engage with his family because he was restricted by Gulf Bend. He also says he was unable to sleep at night because of the frequency of the phone calls. Although he parrots facts that other courts have found meaningful, the actual restrictions set by Gulf Ben were not - as a matter oflawunduly restrictive. Idle time does not mean that Schuetz had the same flexibility as ifhe were not on call, it means that he can spend his time doing other things than waiting by the telephone to engage his employer. While on call, in the four years preceding his complaint, Schuetz received no more than three telephone calls per week and was required to travel to face-to-face meetings no more than twice per week. He could also freely exchange on-call shifts with other case managers. These restrictions were minimal in time and obligation; they were not so rigid as to prohibit him from using his own time for his own purposes. 3. Conclusion. Because he was free to use his idle time as he pleased, he will not be compensated for the time he was on call but not called to work by Gulf Bend. Signed onJuly 12, 2016, at Houston, Texas. Lynn N. Hughes United States DistrictJudge

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.