Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03032/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 

---

LYLE 

vs. 

CITY 

G. ARMITAGE, 

PUBLI SH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Jr• I et a l ., ) 

) 

Pl aintiffs-Appellees, ) 

) 

) 

) 

OF EMPORIA, KANSAS, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant . ) 

FIL .L . J 

United States Court of Appeali: Tenth Circuit 

DEC 2 8 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3032 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DI STRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

(D.C . No. 90-1222 - K) 

Stanley E . Craven, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne, Kansas City, 

Missouri (Dale W. Bell , Helbert , Bell & Smith, Emporia, Kansas, 

with him on the brief) for Defendant-Appellant. 

W. Irving Shaw, Emporia, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges and BRATTON, District 

Judge.t 

KELLY, Circuit Judge. 

Defendant-appellant City of Emporia, Kansas appeals the 

d i strict court's award of backpay to city pol ice detectives for 

lunch periods and time spent on call. On appeal , defendant argues 

that the district court erred by: (1) determini ng that lunch 

periods constitute compensable working time; (2) determining that 

t The Honorable Howard C. Bratton, Senior United States 

District Judge for the District of New Mexico, sitting by 

designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-3032 Document: 010110154900 Date Filed: 12/28/1992 Page: 1 
time spent "on call" constitutes compensable working time; and (3) 

improperly calculating the amount of backpay owed to plaintiffs. 

Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse on the 

first two issues, and therefore need not address the third. 

Background 

In 1987 the city implemented a flextime policy which allowed 

detectives to schedule their own eight hour work shift. 

Detectives were required to take a lunch break of at least onehalf hour, for which they were not paid. The break could not be 

the first or last half hour of the shift. Detectives were allowed 

to eat where they chose, including at home. They were paid for 

the time going to and coming from lunch, and were required to 

notify dispatch of their location in case they were needed. They 

were not allowed to consume alcohol during lunch. They were 

required to respond to questions from the public if approached 

during lunch. When detectives were called back to duty during 

lunch, they were paid at the overtime rate. 

The detectives also rotated standby duty and each detective 

was on call one week out of six. The standby detective was paid 

$30 per week, plus overtime for the time actually worked. The 

standby detective was provided with a pager so he did not have to 

remain near a phone, although he was required to stay in the 

vicinity in order to call in within ten minutes of being paged, 

and report to the station within twenty minutes if necessary. The 

detectives were called back, on average, less than two times per 

week of on call duty. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3032 Document: 010110154900 Date Filed: 12/28/1992 Page: 2 
The detectives brought suit for backpay under the Fair Labor 

Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U.S.C. § 201. Following a bench trial, 

the district court awarded backpay for plaintiffs' lunch periods 

and time spent on call. 

Discussion 

We review the district court's findings of fact under the 

clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of l aw we review de novo. 

See Uselton v. Commercial Lovelace Motor Freight. Inc., 940 F.2d 

564, 572 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 589 (1991). 

I. The Lunch Period Issue 

Relying on two prior district court decisions, the district 

court held that the detectives should be compensated for their 

lunch periods because they "were not completely relieved of duty . " 

Wahl v. City of Wichita, Kansas, 725 F. Supp. 1133 (D. Kan. 1989 ); 

Nixon v. City of Junction. Kansas, 707 F. Supp. 473 (D. Kan. 

1988). However, we recently decided Lamon v . City of Shawnee, 972 

F.2d 1145 (1 0th Cir. 1992) which sets forth the correct standard 

and requires a different outcome under these facts. 

In Lamon, the city police officers were also on a flextime 

schedule and were required to check out when taking their lunch 

break and provide a location and phone number where they could be 

reached . An officer's half hour lunch began when the officer 

arrived at a lunch location and checked out with the dispatcher. 

The o fficers could not conduct personal errands during lunch, and 

were required to respond to citizen inquiries and act in a 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3032 Document: 010110154900 Date Filed: 12/28/1992 Page: 3 
professional manner. We held that the proper standard for 

determining compensability of a meal period is whether the officer 

is "primarily ... engaged in work-related duties during meal 

periods." Id. at 1157 . "That a police officer is on-call and has 

some limited responsibilities during meal periods does not 

perforce mean the officer is working." Id. (citing Lee v. Coahoma 

County , Mississippi, 937 F .2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1991)) . In the 

instant case the district court erred by applying the wrong 

standard for compensability of meal periods. The facts as found 

by the district court indicate that the detectives were not 

primarily engaged in work-related duties during meal periods. We 

reverse the award of backpay f or meal periods. 

II. The "On Call" Issue 

In d etermining whether time spent on- call should be 

compensable under the FLSA we look to the facts and circumstances 

of each case. Norton v. Worthen Van Service, Inc., 839 F.2d 653, 

654 (10th Cir. 1988). The district court relied on Renfro v. City 

of Emporia, 948 F.2d 1529 (10th Cir. 1991) cert. dismissed, 112 S. 

Ct. 1310 (1992) in awarding compensation to detectives for standby 

status. Renfro involved firefighters who, while on call, were 

required to be at the station within twenty minutes, fully dressed 

in protective gear. They received on average three to five calls 

per day. We held that the district court did not err in granting 

the firefighters' motion for summary judgment, because the 

firefighters could not use on call time for personal pursuits or 

other employment due to the quick response time and frequency of 

- 4-

Appellate Case: 92-3032 Document: 010110154900 Date Filed: 12/28/1992 Page: 4 
calls per day. The instant case is distinguishable from Renfro 

because of differences in the nature of the duties and frequency 

o f the calls. 

On call time is compensable if the on call requirements are 

so restrictive that they interfere with employees' personal 

pursuits. Renfro, 948 F.2d at 1537 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 

553.221(d)). However, an employee who is "merely required to 

leave word at his home or with company officials where he may be 

reached is not working while on call . " Norton, 839 F.2d at 655 

n.3 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 (1985)). I n both Norton and Boehm 

v. Kansas City Power and Light Co., 868 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir. 

1989), we held that the FLSA did not require compensation for oncall time where the employees were allowed to leave the employer's 

premises and were able to pursue personal activities, even though 

the activities were somewhat restricted because they had to b e 

accessible by pager. 

On similar facts, the Eleventh Circuit recently held that 

detectives' on call time was not compensable. Birdwell v. City of 

Gadsden. Alabama , 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1992). The Birdwell 

court distinguished Renfro, reasoning that firefighters, as 

opposed to detectives, spent their on call time predominantly for 

the bene fit of the employer because the firefighters could expect 

several emergency calls per day. Id. at 809-10. 

In the instant case, the detectives were allowed to do as 

they pleased while on call, as long as they remained sober, could 

be reached by beeper and we re able to r eport to duty within twenty 

minutes of responding to the page. They were called in on average 

-5-

Appellate Case: 92-3032 Document: 010110154900 Date Filed: 12/28/1992 Page: 5 
less than two times per week, as opposed to the twenty to thirty 

times per week for the firefighters in Renfro. The firefighters 

were required to report within twenty minutes of a call, in full 

gear, and subject to discipline if late. Renfro, 948 F.2d at 

1537. Furthermore, the detectives were called in to investigate 

crimes which had been committed, as opposed to responding to 

emergencies in progress. The firefighters were "lying in wait for 

emergencies [which was] a benefit to the employer and thus 

compensable under FLSA. " Id. at 1538 (distinguishing Norton and 

Boehm, where the employees were not waiting to respond to 

emergencies). Although the detectives' services are certainly 

beneficial to the public, to require compensation under these 

facts would require that all on call employees be paid for standby 

time. This would be a major change in the law of the FLSA. See 

Martin v. Ohio Turnpike Authority, 968 F.2d 606 (6th Cir. 1992) 

(no compensation for standby time of highway department employees) 

pet. for cert . filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3403 (1992); Owens v. Local No . 

169, Ass'n of Pulp and Paper Workers, 971 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(no compensation for standby time of mechanics); Bright v. Houston 

N.W. Med. Ctr. Survivor, Inc., 934 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1991) (no 

compensation for standby time of medical technician) cert. denied, 

1125 S. Ct. 882 (1992). As such, we also reverse the award of 

back pay for time spent on call. 

The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the case 

is REMANDED with instructions to enter judgment for the city. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 92-3032 Document: 010110154900 Date Filed: 12/28/1992 Page: 6