Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00130/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00130-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BRANDON BRYAN; JEREMY TUCKER; 

FRANKLIN STRACENER; NATHAN 

CARTER; CHRISTOPHER RICHARDSON; 

KENNETH RAYMOND; KAYLEN JACOBS; 

JUSTIN BELL; DESHUN WILLIAMS; 

MICHAEL MERRITT; MICHAEL BORDEN; 

and CORNELIUS MANNING 

v. No. 3:18-cv-130-DPM 

MISSISSIPPI COUNTY, ARKANSAS 

ORDER 

PLAINTIFFS 

DEFENDANT 

The plaintiffs, patrol deputies and jailers, say the County didn't 

properly compensate them for overtime hours worked. Bryan brought 

this case; the Court conditionally certified a collective; others opted in; 

the opt-in folks then joined Bryan as named plaintiffs asserting only 

individual claims. NQ 34. The County seeks summary judgment, and 

alternatively decertification. The alternative request is moot- no group 

exists. The plaintiffs seek partial summary judgment. 

The County argues it properly compensated the plaintiffs for the 

hours on their timesheets, which the plaintiffs dispute. The County 

says the timesheets are sworn testimony because they include this line: 

"I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 

of America that the above recorded hours worked and leave taken are 

Case 3:18-cv-00130-DPM Document 51 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 4
correct." E.g., NQ 41-1 at 44. Though the parties don't dwell on it, there's 

also this document's title: "Mississippi County Payroll Report 

Affidavit." The statute-28 U.S.C. § 1746-applies, though, only if 

some law requires or permits sworn declarations on timesheets. No 

such legal requirement exists. Does some law permit it? The County 

has not identified any such law. And the Court has found no authority 

applying§ 1746 to timesheets. 

Whatever the statute's reach may be on this kind of document, 

Mississippi County's timesheets do not entitle it to judgment as a 

matter of law on these workers' claims. First, on their face, the 

timesheets required the jailers and patrol deputies to swear about 

"hours worked and leave taken" on future days. That's a shadow. 

Second, officers have testified that they faced a Morton's fork: fill out, 

sign, and turn the timesheet in, or face discipline. NQ 41-3 at 14, 17-18; 

NQ 42-11 at 2. Third, in these circumstances, admittedly a mix of 

contradictory and supplementary words, the Court declines to apply 

Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 

(8th Cir. 1983) and like cases. There is enough explanatory material of 

record to implicate the rule of Bass v. City of Sioux Falls, 232 F.3d 615, 

618 (8th Cir. 1999). And the fact finder should be the one to decide, 

based on in-person testimony, the truth here. The County's motion for 

summary judgment is therefore denied. 

-2-

Case 3:18-cv-00130-DPM Document 51 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 4
The plaintiffs move for summary judgment only on certain issues. 

The County doesn't address them in its response; it emphasizes its 

argument about the sworn timesheets. But, by arguing that it properly 

paid the plaintiffs for the hours on their timesheets, the County 

implicitly concedes that the plaintiffs were the County's protected, 

hourly paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the 

Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. 29 U.S.C. § 203; ARK. CODE ANN. 

§ 11-4-203. The plaintiffs' motion is therefore granted on their issues 1 

and 2: they're covered employees; and Mississippi County is their 

employer. The rest of the plaintiffs' points raise genuine factual 

questions, which a trial must resolve. 

* * * 

The County's motion, NQ 39, is denied. The plaintiffs' motion, 

NQ 42, is partly granted and mostly denied. A trial is needed to 

determine the timesheets' accuracy, the work period established by the 

County, and whether the County properly compensated the plaintiffs 

for overtime hours worked. The Court directs two batches of proof: 

one about the patrol deputies; the other about the jailers. The Court's 

delay in addressing the motions creates good cause to reopen the time 

to request a settlement conference. Any request, which must be joint, 

must be filed by 31 January 2020. This case is second out for trial on 

6 April 2020. 

-3-

Case 3:18-cv-00130-DPM Document 51 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 4
So Ordered. 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

-4-

Case 3:18-cv-00130-DPM Document 51 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 4