Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00936/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

JOAN K. SMITH, an individual; and )

ROBERTA E. TATE, an individual, )

)

 Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, )

) No. 2:14-cv-0936-HRH

 Defendant. ) 

__________________________________________) 

O R D E R

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the issue of whether they are non-exempt

employees for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral

argument has not been requested and is not deemed necessary. 

Facts

Plaintiffs are Joan Karen Smith and Roberta Tate. Defendant is the City of Phoenix. 

1Docket No. 55. 

2Docket No. 58. 

-1-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 14
Plaintiffs worked as resident assistants (RAs) at Pine Tower, a senior housing facility

owned and operated by defendant. Smith worked as a RA from May 2007 through April

2014. Tate worked as a RA from September 2009 through February 2014. 

Plaintiffs signed a Tenant Resident Assistant (TRA) Agreement each year that they

were RAs. The TRA Agreement provided that an RA “shall be an independent contractor

and shall not be an employee of the City.”3 The TRA Agreement further provided that the

RA “agrees that he or she is not an employee of the City[.]”4 Diane Reifenstahl, a property

managerfor defendant,testified that the RAs were independent contractors.5 Pene Norville,

defendant’s housing manager and Rule 30(b)(6) witness, testified that the RAs were “kind

of right in the middle of” being a volunteer and an independent contractor, that they were

a “[c]ombination of both.”6

Attached to the TRA Agreement was a list of services that RAs were to provide: 

< Follow any directions provided by the Housing, Law,

Fire and Police Departments.

3TRA Agreement at 3, ¶ 6, Exhibit A, Defendant’s Controverting Statement of Facts

[etc.], Docket No. 59. 

4

Id.

5Deposition of Diane Reifenstahl at 19:22-24, Exhibit E, Defendant’s Controverting

Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

6Deposition of Pene Norville at 34:10-17, Exhibit A, Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket No. 60. 

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 14
< Respond promptly to all emergency calls.

< Complete incident reports on all unusual or emergency

incidents.

< Tactfully inform residents of lease violations and report

them to the administrative staff. 

< Coordinate activities with administrative staff and the

other tenant resident assistants.

< Cooperate with all City services and departments, and

follow subsequent memoranda from them. 

< Secure apartments in case of death or lengthy illness.

< Conduct security checks on all doors leading to the

outside periodically and on an as needed basis.

< Conduct security checks of entire area, inside and

outside, periodically and on an as-needed basis. Checks

must be more frequent on Saturdays, Sundays and

holidays. 

< Lock all doors leading to the outside by the assigned time

and permit only individuals with legitimate reason to

enter the premises.

< Notify emergency maintenance personnel and Housing

Program Assistant of any condition which needs prompt

attention, such as air conditioner failure, major electrical

outage, leaking or broken piping, etc.

< Report all non-emergency maintenance problems to

administrative staff.

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 14
< Perform light housekeeping duties in public areas, as

needed or as directed and maintain the Tenant Resident

Assistant’s apartment. 

< Tenant Resident Assistant must live in the project and be

responsible for and respond to tenants’ legitimate

requirements. 

< Answer City phone in a courteous and timely manner.

< Other duties as may be reasonably required.

< No personal use of telephone provided by the Housing

Department is permitted.[7]

The Scope of Services exhibit that was attached to the TRA Agreement

also provided that 

[t]he Tenant Resident Assistant shall perform the services

required underthis Agreement from 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday, every other week. Services after 5:00

p.m. on weekdays and all day on Saturdays, Sundays and

holidays are limited to emergencies, locking and un-locking

doors, and security checks.[8] 

Smith testified that her workweek “started ... on a Monday at 8:00 o’clock, and I

ended my week the following Monday at 8.00.”9 However, there is a work schedule

7

Scope of Services for Tenant Resident Assistant Services at 1-2, Exhibit A, Amended

and Restated Tenant Resident Assistant Agreement, Exhibit B, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

8

Id. at 2. 

9Deposition of Joan Karen Smith at 86:24-87:1, Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

(continued...)

-4-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 14
calendar in evidence that shows that plaintiffs created their own work schedule and that

they did not work seven days in a row.10

Smith testified that on the days that she worked, she was required to be available 24

hours per day.11 Tate testified that she did not leave the premises when she was on duty.12

Reifenstahl testified that RAs “had to remain on the property” when they were on duty.13

Norville testified that defendant “prefers” that the RAs remain on site while on duty.14 

Smith testified that other duties she performed as a RA included delivering monthly

rent statements, delivering other notices to tenants, signing contractors in and out of the

facility, and monitoring for unauthorized persons.15 RAs would also respond if the front

9

(...continued)

Summary Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

10Exhibit G, Defendant’s Controverting Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

11

Smith Deposition at 47:24-48:2, Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

12Deposition of Roberta Elise Tate at 30:17-19, Exhibit H, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

13Reifenstahl Deposition at 14:24-25, Exhibit E, Defendant’s Controverting Statement

of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

14Norville Deposition at 25:18-20, Exhibit D, Defendant’s Controverting Statement of

Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

15

Smith Deposition at 89:16-19; 106:11-14; 141:22-142:6, Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

-5-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 5 of 14
gate would not open at night.16 A RA could get up to two to three calls per hour from

tenants in need of assistance.17 But, an RA might get fewer calls as well. For example,

Smith’s sister testified that Smith would only get one to two calls or knocks on her door

during a four-to-five hour period.18

After hours, RAs were to respond to emergencies such as fire, flood and medical

emergencies. Residents could call the RA in case of an emergency and the RA would then

call 911. However, Reifenstahl testified that RAs were not required to answer calls that came

in after hours,19and residents could call 911 themselves or call a maintenance emergency

number themselves. 

RAs received a rent-free apartment and a monthly stipend of $200.00. Smith’s rent

would have been $456.00 per month had she not been an RA and Tate’s would have been

$250.00.

In the general information sheet that was provided to Pine Tower residents,

defendant advised residents that 

16Deposition of Earnestine T. Pittman at 25:12-19, Exhibit C, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

17

Id. at 23:3-19. 

18Deposition of Peggy Yost at 21:18-22:9, Exhibit L, Defendant’s Controverting

Statement of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

19Reifenstahl Deposition at 14:6-10, Exhibit E, Defendant’s Controverting Statement

of Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

-6-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 14
[f]or your protection, there is a Resident Assistant on duty 24

hours per day, 7 days per week. The Resident Assistants will act

on behalf of the office if the manager is not available, and will

assist with fire, life, safety and maintenance emergencies and all

other management issues. As the Resident Assistant is on duty

for such extended hours, we ask that non-emergency items (i.e.,

packages, rent statements) wait until regular business hours.

Please do not disturb the Resident Assistant who is off duty.[20]

In addition to the RAs, Pine Tower had a property manager who was on the premises

during the weekdays. There were also two full-time maintenance workers and a full-time

service coordinator on the premises during the weekdays.

On May 1, 2014, plaintiffs commenced this action in which they assert two claims

under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 1) a minimum wage violation and 2) an

overtime violation. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment that they were non-exempt

employees for purposes of the FLSA and not independent contractors or volunteers. 

Discussion

Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The

initial burden is on the moving party to show that there is an absence of genuine issues of

material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). If the moving party meets

its initial burden, then the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there

20Pine Tower General Information Sheet, Exhibit F, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

-7-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 7 of 14
is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). In

deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court views the evidence of the non-movant

in the light most favorable to that party, and all justifiable inferences are also to be drawn

in its favor. Id. at 255. “[T]he court’s ultimate inquiry is to determine whether the ‘specific

facts’ set forth by the nonmoving party, coupled with undisputed background or contextual

facts, are such that a rational or reasonable jury might return a verdict in its favor based on

that evidence.” T.W. Elec. Service, Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631

(9th Cir. 1987).

“The FLSA provides that ‘[e]very employer shall pay to each of his employees who

in any workweek is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or

is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for

commerce,’ a minimum wage.” Boucher v. Shaw, 572 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting

29 U.S.C. § 206(a)). In addition, “no employer shall employ any of its covered employees for

a work week that is longerthan 40 hours unless that employee receives as compensation for

his employment at least one and a half times the regular rate for all overtime hours.” 

Forrester v. Roth’s I. G. A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1981). But, defendant

contends that the FLSA does not apply to plaintiffs because they were not “employees.”

First, defendant argues that plaintiffs were independent contractors rather than

employees. Although plaintiffs’ contracts state that they were independent contractors,

-8-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 8 of 14
“[e]conomic realities, not contractual labels, determine employment status for the remedial

purposes of the FLSA.” Real v. Driscoll Strawberry Associates, Inc., 603 F.2d 748, 755 (9th

Cir. 1979). To determine whether a person is an employee rather than an independent

contractorfor purposes of the FLSA, “courts have identified a number of factors that should

be considered.” Donovan v. Sureway Cleaners, 656 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1981). 

“Although the list is not exhaustive,” the six factors the court should consider are:

“1) the degree of the alleged employer’s right to control the

manner in which the work is to be performed,

2) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss

depending upon his managerial skill;

3) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials

required for his task, or his employment of helpers;

4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill;

5) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and

6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged

employer’s business.” 

Id. (quoting Real, 603 F.2d at 754). “The presence of any individual factor is not dispositive

of whether an employee/employerrelationship exists. Such a determination depends ‘upon

the circumstances of the whole activity.’” Real, 603 F.2d at 754 (quoting Rutherford Food

Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730 (1947)). “The existence and degree of each factor is a

question of fact while the legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers

-9-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 9 of 14
are employees or independent contractors—is a question of law.” Brock v. Superior Care,

Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2nd Cir. 1988). 

Based on the totality of the circumstances here, as a matter of law, plaintiffs were not

independent contractors. Although defendant did not exert total control over the manner

in which plaintiffs’ work was to be done, defendant provided a list of duties that plaintiffs

were to perform and the Pine Tower manager at times assigned additional tasks to them

such as helping to prepare and deliver the monthly rent statements.21 

Plaintiffs were not provided an opportunity for profit or loss based on work

performance. The fact that Smith was able to have other jobs while working as an RA does

not suggest that she had the opportunity for profit.22 Employees may work for more than

one employer without losing the protections afforded by the FLSA. Walling v. Twyeffort,

Inc., 158 F.2d 944, 947 (2nd Cir. 1947). 

As Norville testified, plaintiffs were not required to purchase any specific tools or

equipment in order to do their jobs.23 Rather, plaintiffs were provided a specific apartment

21

Smith Deposition at 104:3-105:4, Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

22

Smith worked at the nursing home where her mother lived for a period of time and

also worked two days a month as an aesthetician at two different senior housing facilities. 

23Norville Deposition at 28:2-5, Exhibit A, Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Partial Summary Judgment, Docket No. 60. 

-10-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 10 of 14
by defendant that had a city phone and fire alarm system in it.24

In addition, Smith testified

that the phone log books that the RAs used for a time were provided to them by defendant.25

The fact that Smith used her own cell phone to perform her tasks26 was nothing more than

a matter of convenience. 

Plaintiffs also did not employ assistants. Although defendant has offered evidence

that plaintiffs had people help them with their tasks, there is no evidence that plaintiffs

“employed” these helpers. Rather, the “helpers” were friends and relatives of Smith who

would help out when visiting Smith.

Being an RA did not require any special skills. Rather, as Norville testified, RAs were

“typically very low-functioning individuals.”27

There was a high degree of permanence in the working relationship, even though

plaintiffs signed a new contract each year. Smith was an RA for almost 7 years and Tate was

an RA for over three years. Norville’s testimony is not to the contrary. Although Norville

24Norville Deposition at 18:22-19:4, Exhibit D, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

25

Smith Deposition at 58:8-14, Exhibit A, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

26

Smith Deposition at 129:2-25, Exhibit B, Defendant’s Controverting Statement of

Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

27Norville Deposition at 16:14-18, Exhibit D, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

-11-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 11 of 14
testified that currently there is only one RA who has been in that position for more than one

year,

28 Norville also testified that “we have had them [RAs] go from two months to 10 years

or maybe even longer.”29

The services that the RAs provide may not be integral to defendant’s operation of

senior housing facilities as evidenced by the fact that not all of defendant’s senior housing

facilities have RAs.30 But, as Norville testified, having RAs provides “a benefit to the

residents, yes.”31

The fact that either party could terminate the RA contract also suggests an employee

relationship.32See Mathis v. Housing Authority of Umatilla County, 242 F. Supp. 2d 777, 785

(D. Or. 2002) (“The Section 8 Coordinator position was for an indefinite duration and either

party could terminate the relationship at any time. These facts favor an employee

relationship.”). And the fact that plaintiffs have no identifiable business entity holding itself

out as a provider of special services suggests that plaintiffs were not independent contractors

28Norville Deposition at 31:5-10, Exhibit D, Defendant’s Controverting Statement of

Facts [etc.], Docket No. 59. 

29

Id. at 31:2-3. 

30

Id. at 44:15-20. 

31Norville Deposition at 14:6-11, Exhibit D, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. 

32

Id. at 15:20-21 (“We have contracts with them and either party can give a 30-day

notice to terminate the contract”). 

-12-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 12 of 14
as does the fact that plaintiffs have no separate place of business, but rather were required

to reside on defendant’s premises. 

Secondly, defendant argues that plaintiffs were volunteers rather than employees. 

For purposes of the FLSA, a volunteer is “[a]n individual who performs hours of service for

a public agency for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons, without promise, expectation

or receipt of compensation for services rendered[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 553.101. “Volunteers may

be paid expenses, reasonable benefits, a nominal fee, or any combination thereof, for their

service without losing their status as volunteers.” Id. § 553.106(a). “A nominal fee is not a

substitute for compensation and must not be tied to productivity.” Id. at § 553.106(e). 

“Congress did not intend to discourage or impede volunteer activities undertaken for civic,

charitable, orhumanitarianpurposes” but “[i]ndividuals shall be considered volunteers only

where their services are offered freely and without pressure or coercion, direct or implied,

from an employer.” Id. at § 553.101(b) & (c). “Whether someone is an employee or a

volunteer for purposes of the FLSA is a question of law to be determined by the court.” 

Vonbrethorst v. Washington County, Idaho, Case No. CV06–0351–SEJL, 2008 WL 2785549,

at *3 (D. Idaho July 15, 2008).

As a matter of law, plaintiffs were not volunteers. On an annual basis, Smith received

$5,472 in free rent and Tate received $3,000 in free rent. When this is added to the $2,400 in

stipends thatthey received, Smith received annual compensation of $7,872 and Tate received

-13-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 13 of 14
$5,400, which is more than a nominal amount. These amounts represent compensation, not

reasonable benefits or nominal fees. It is also significant that plaintiffs signed contracts with

defendant each year. A volunteer is not typically required to sign what in this case was

basically an employment contract.33 And, even if plaintiffs were motivated to become RAs,

at least in part, by civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons, the fact that they were being

compensated for their work means that they were not volunteers. 

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment34 is granted. Plaintiffs are granted

summary judgment that they are neither independent contractors nor volunteers for

purposes of the FLSA. 

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 5th day of November, 2015. 

/s/ H. Russel Holland 

United States District Judge

33Plaintiffs also offered an “employment opportunity” flyer in support of their

argument that they were not volunteers. Exhibit G, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment, Docket No. 55. But, as defendant points out, this flyer was from Scott Business

Group, not defendant. 

34Docket No. 55. 

-14-

Case 2:14-cv-00936-HRH Document 61 Filed 11/06/15 Page 14 of 14