WASHINGTON v. CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC.

WASHINGTON v. CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC.
2001 OK CIV APP 102
30 P.3d 1162
72 OBJ 2448
Case Number: 95161
Decided: 05/03/2001
Mandate Issued: 07/26/2001
DIVISION I
THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION I

MICHAEL C. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant
v.
CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC., GREAT PLAINS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant/Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CADDO COUNTY, OKLAHOMA

HONORABLE RICHARD G. VAN DYCK, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Michael C. Washington, McAlester, Oklahoma, Pro se
Don G. Pope, Don G. Pope & Associates, P.C., Norman, Oklahoma, for Appellee

JOPLIN, Judge

¶1 Plaintiff/Appellant Michael C. Washington (Inmate or Plaintiff) seeks review of the trial court's order granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant/Appellee Cornell Corrections, Inc., Great Plains Correctional Facility (CCI, GPCF, or collectively, Defendant) on Inmate's claim to recover unpaid wages allegedly due for labor performed while incarcerated. In this proceeding,

[30 P.3d 1163]

¶2 CCI is a private corporation and houses designated inmates held in custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) at GPCF, Hinton, Oklahoma, pursuant to a competitive-bid contract. See, Oklahoma Corrections Act,

¶3 DOC transferred Inmate to GPCF. While there, Inmate worked in a warehouse and the law library, for which he received compensation according to the DOC schedule, about $32.00.

¶4 Inmate subsequently commenced the instant suit against Defendant to recover $3,468.00 in wages allegedly due and unpaid, claiming entitlement to the hourly minimum wage of $5.15 guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§201, et seq. (FLSA), for the hours he worked as an "employee" at the privately owned GPCF. Over Inmate's objection, the trial court directed GPCF to prepare a special report. See, Martinez v. Aaron,

¶5 Upon submission of the special report to the trial court, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting failure of Inmate's claim as a matter of law. See, Franks v. Oklahoma State Industries,

¶6 On consideration of the submitted materials, the trial court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Inmate appeals, asserting (1) inasmuch as Defendant admitted Inmate's statement of uncontroverted facts, and (2) because on the admitted facts, his cited authorities support his claim to relief, the trial court erred in granting judgment to Defendant. Defendant responds, arguing (1) the admission of the facts does not establish liability as a matter of law, (2) the Oklahoma Corrections Act, DOC policy and the parties' contract expressly permit use of inmate labor at the DOC rates of compensation, and (3) the 10th Circuit in Franks expressly held that prisoners such as Inmate enjoy no FLSA protections.

¶7 Having reviewed the cited authorities and the parties' arguments, under the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe the 10th Circuit in Franks properly analyzed the issue:

. . . The district court observed that although Williams v. Meese,

. . . We conclude that plaintiff is not an "employee" under either Title VII or the ADEA because his relationship with the Bureau of Prisons, and therefore, with the defendants, arises out of his status as an inmate, not an employee. Although his relationship with defendants may contain some elements commonly present in an employment relationship, it arises "from [plaintiff's] having been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in the [defendants'] correctional institution. The primary purpose of their association [is] incarceration, not employment." (Citation omitted.)

[30 P.3d 1164]

[Williams], 926 F.2d at 997.

We believe that the same rationale applies in the instant case.

. . .

[And, i]n our view, the economic reality test was not intended to apply to work performed in the prison by a prison inmate.

7 F.3d at 972.

¶8 In the present case, Inmate's relationship with GPCF arises, not out of some employer-employee relationship, but by virtue of Inmate's status as a prisoner convicted of one or more crimes and sentenced to a term of confinement in DOC custody. Franks, 7 F.3d at 972; Williams, 926 F.2d at 997. In our view, Inmate's confinement at GPCF, although privately owned, does not alter his status as a prisoner, not an "employee," and not entitled to FLSA protections under the "economic reality" test.

¶9 The order of the trial court is therefore AFFIRMED.

¶10 ADAMS, P.J., not participating; JONES, J., concurs.

FOOTNOTES

1 Inmate's appeal would ordinarily be governed by the accelerated review procedures set forth at Rule 13(h), Rules for District Courts, 12 O.S. Supp. 1993, Ch. 2, App., and Rule 1.36, Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules, 12 O.S. Supp. 1997, Ch. 15, App. However, apparently due to Inmate's continued incarceration, the matter stands submitted on the record assembled, completed and transmitted by the Court Clerk pursuant to the designation and counter-designation of record of the parties, and the parties' briefs.