Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00299/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00299-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Luis E. Martinez, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Ehrenberg Fire District, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-00299-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On June 8, 2015, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment and denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that 

Plaintiffs were employees – not volunteers – within the meaning of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Doc. 53 at 11. Defendant has filed 

a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court erred in not applying the “20% 

guideline” set forth in Department of Labor (“DOL”) Opinion Letters. Doc. 55. 

 The 20% guideline articulated by the DOL “suggests that receipt of pay less than 

20% of what a fulltime employee would receive for the same service is indicative of 

volunteer status.” Doc. 53 at 8. Relying on Opinion Letter FLSA2005-51, the Court 

found that the guideline did not apply because it “assumes that the compensation in 

question is not based on hours worked,” and Plaintiffs’ pay was in part based on hours 

worked. Id. at 8-9. 

 Defendant’s motion notes that two other DOL Opinion Letters apply the 20% 

guideline to situations where pay can fluctuate depending on the number of shifts worked 

Case 2:14-cv-00299-DGC Document 57 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

by firefighters and the number of hours spent on call during shifts. Doc. 55 at 3-5. The 

Court read these Opinion Letters when considering the summary judgment motions. The 

Court found significant that both letters were addressing compensation based on a “per 

call” basis, a form of compensation specifically identified in the Code of Federal 

Regulations as appropriate for firefighters. See 29 C.F.R. § 553.106(e). As the Court 

noted in its order, DOL Opinion Letters also make clear that per-hour compensation is 

viewed as being tied to productivity and inconsistent with volunteer status. Doc. 53 at 6-

7. The Court therefore found continuing meaning in the language of Opinion Letter 

FLSA2005-51 – the original source of the 20% guideline – suggesting that the guideline 

does not apply when compensation is based on “hours worked.” Opinion Letter 

FLSA2005-51 at 2. The Court continues to hold this view. 

 What is more, the 20% guideline is only a factor to be considered – it is not 

dispositive. The Court made clear that the 20% guideline would not have changed the 

outcome even if it was applied: “Given the other factors identified in this order, the 

Court would find that Plaintiffs are not volunteers even if the 20% guideline applied and 

Plaintiffs fell below it.” Doc. 53 at 9 n.3. Defendant does not challenge the other 

grounds upon which the Court’s decision rested. 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 55) is denied. 

 Dated this 26th day of June, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00299-DGC Document 57 Filed 06/26/15 Page 2 of 2