F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 3, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

The Honorable Euge ne E. Siler, J r., Unit ed S tates Circuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation. [PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 06- 1137 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 02-23662 -CV -A MS ARMANDO SARIOL, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us FLORIDA CRYSTALS COR PORATION, FLORIDA CRYSTALS FOOD CORP ., SU GA R FA RMS C O- OP , D ef en da nts -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J ul y 3, 200 7)
Be fo re T JO FL A T , F A Y a nd S IL E R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. *2

SI L E R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge : A rm an do S ar iol appe al s f ro m agr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t in fav or of

F lor ida Cr y sta ls C or

por at ion , F lor ida

Cr y sta ls F ood Co rp or at ion , a nd S ugar F ar m s C o- op (c oll ec tiv el y

“ D ef en da nts ”) on hi s F ai r L ab or S tandard s A ct

( “ FL SA ”) c la im

f or
ove rt im e co m

pe nsa tio n, 29 U
. S. C. § 207. T he m ag istrate j udge , sittin g by the part ie s’
co nse nt, e nte re d su m

m ar y j udgm en t ba se d onthe F L SA ’ s a gr ic ult ur e exe m pti on, 29 U. S. C. § 213(a)(6), finding that Sariol, who operated a se rvice truck delivering fuel on S ugar Farm s C o- op’ s su ga r cane a nd ric e fie lds , w as inv olv ed in a fo rm

of secondary

agriculture. W e A FFI RM.

BACKGRO UND Su ga r Farm s C o- op i s or ga niz ed a s an a gr ic ult

ur al c oope rativ e as soc ia tio n unde r Fl or id a law
. I t e nga ge s inf ar m ing ope ratio ns, inc lud ing the planti ng and
cu lti va tio n of

sug ar cane a nd r ic e, but

doe s no t un de rt ak e an y

m ar ke tin g, pr oc es sin g,
o r mi l l i n g o f

i t s a g r i c u l tu r a l p r o du c t s . Th e l a n dmak i n g up t h e f a rm i s o w n e db y a
num be r of dif fe re nt e nti tie s th at

pay the c oope rativ e to c ar

ry on t he f

ar m ing operations. Sugar-F arms Co -op em ploy s betwee n 220 and 300 p eople, and uses ind epen de nt c ontra ct or s to sup ple m en t the w ork of it s e m plo y ee s. O ve ra ll, the
co ntr ac tor s per fo rm onl y

asm al l f ra ct ionof the a gr ic ult

ur al w ork a s c om

pa re d to the reg ul ar em

pl oyees.3

Sariol w orked directly

for S ugar Far

m s Co-op, deliv er i n g fuel for farm
m ac hin er y and pe rf

orm ing m ai nte na nc e an d r ep ai r se rv ic es on f ar m e qui pm en t. Fl or ida Cr y sta ls C or por at iona nd F lor ida Cr

y sta ls Fo od Cor

por at ionw er e al le ge d to be j oin t e m

plo y er s of

S ar iol
. A s part

of his w ork for Su ga r Farm s C o- op, S ar iol de liv er ed f ue l t o m ac hin er

y ow ne d and o pe rate d by

ind ep en de nt c ontra ct or s w ho pr ovi de d se rv ic es suc h as pl an tin g, f er til iz ing , he rb ic idi ng, a nd h ar ve sti ng d ur ing pe ak ti m es in the gr ow ing se as on. Su ga r Farm s Co- op pur ch as ed al l the fu el use d on the farm an d furn ish ed co ntr ac tor s w ith fu el as pa rt of the ir co m pe nsa tio n. Sa riol
w orke d onthe f

ar m it se lf and d id n ot p ro vid e an y

of f- sit e se rv ic es . A ll of

his dut ie s,
w he the r pr ovi de d to f

el lowe m plo y ee s or

ind ep en de nt contr ac tor s, w er e pa rt of the ope ratio ns a t S ugar Farm s C o- op. In 2002 , Sa

ri ol f ile d th is a ct iona ga ins t the D ef en da nts , a lle gin g vi ola tio ns o f the F L SAf

or m iss ed ove rt im e pa y . T he D ef

en da nts ea ch fi le d se pa rate m oti ons fo r
sum m ar y j udgm en t c la im ing tha t the FL SA ’ s a gr ic ult ur e ex em pti on p re cl ude d S ar iol from rece iving overtim e pay . The m agistrate j udge agr eed and gr an t ed summ ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

th e Defen da nt s o n t hi s g ro un d.

DISC US SION W e re vie w agr an t of s um m ary j udgm en t de novo , a

pply ing th e sam e legal st an da rd s as th e co ur t bel ow, and vi ewin g all fact s and reas on ab le in fere nc es dra wn4

th eref ro m in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . Johnso n v. Booker T

. W ashin gton Broad. Serv. , I nc. , 234 F. 3d 50 1, 507 (11th Cir. 2000). U nde r the F L SA ’ s ov er

tim e w ag e pr ovi sio n, co ve re d em plo y ee s m

ust be pa id at least one and one-half tim es the regular r ate at w hich they are em ploy ed for hours
w orke d ine xc es s of

f orty hou rs . 29 U
. S. C. § 20 7( a) (2 ). Thi s pr ovi sio n do es not cover all em

ploy ees, however, as the FL SA expressly ex em pts tho se worker s

“ e m pl oy e d i n a gr i c ul tur e . ” 29 U
. S
. C
. § 21 3( a ) ( 6)
. T he F L S A , i n turn, defines

“ ag ri cu lture ” to i nc lud e farm ing in al l i ts b ranc he s and am ong ot he r thi ngs inc lud es the cu lti va tio n and t ill ag e of

the soi l, da ir

y ing , the pr oduc tio n, c ult iva tio n, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural o r

h or t i c ul t ur al com m oditi es

. . . a n da n y

p r a c t i c e s ( i n c l u d i n g f

o r e s t ry o r l u m b e r i n g o p e r a t i ons) pe rf orm ed by af ar m er or on a f ar m a s inci de nt t o or

in co nj unc tio n w ith suc h f arm in g oper at ion s, inc lud ing pr ep ar at ionf or m ar ke t, de liv er

y to sto ra ge or to m ar ke t or to carr ie rs f

or tr an spor ta tio n to m ar

ke t. 29 U.S.C. § 2 03 (f). The U nited States Suprem e Court has construed this s tatutory definition as pr ov id in g fo r two cat eg or ie s o f ex em pt ag ric ul tu ral pra ct ic es . Se e F arm er s R es ervo ir & Irr ig at io n C

o. v. McComb , 337 U
. S. 755 , 762 -6 3 (1 94 9)
. T he f ir st h al f of

the definition covers w hat the Court refe rred to as “ prim ary ” agriculture, which includes sp eci fic act iv it ie s lik e cu lt iv at io n and ti ll ag e o f th e so il , dai ry in g, an d h arv es ti ng . Id
. at 762. T he latt er h alf of the def initio n, ac cording to th e Court, has a “ broader”In Bo nn e r v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (e n banc) , we a dopted 1 a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll o f t he de c isi on s o f t

he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d ow n p ri or

to t he c los e of business on September 30, 1981. 5 m eanin g th at

“ inc lud es a ny

pr ac tic es , w he the r or not the m se lve s farm ing pr ac tic es , w hic h are pe rf

orm ed e ith er by af ar m er on a f ar m , inc ide nta lly

to or in co nj unc tio n with ‘ such’ far

m ing op erations.” Id
. a t 76 2- 63. La te r co urts hav e ch ar ac te ri ze d th is d i stinctio n as one between “prim ary agriculture” and “ secondary agriculture. ” See Marshall v. G ulf & W

. I ndus ., Inc. , 552 F. 2d 12 4, 126 (11th Cir. 1977). W e ag re e w iththe di st rict c ourt tha t S ar iol ’ s j ob d uti es w er e a fo rm

of
se co ndary

a gr ic ult ur e. N um er ous co urts h av e fo und sim ilar ac tiv iti es to co m e w ith in the agriculture exem

ption
. For instance, the Suprem e Cou rt h as h eld that em ploy ees who tra n s p o rt ed worker s and sup plies to an em ploy er’ s sugar cane fie lds were
en ga ge d ina gr ic ult

ur e, a nd thus co ve re d by the e xe m

ption, a s w er e tho se w ho rep ai red an d s erv ic ed e q u i p ment ne ces sa ry to th e far m in g o pe rat io ns . Maneja v. W aia lua A gr. Co

. , 349 U. S. 254, 260-64 (19 55). F ly ing a c ro p -d ustin g airplane,
co oki ng f or f ie ld w orke rs , or

e ve n c le ri ca l w ork c anbe c onsi de re d a gr ic ult ur e fo r pur pose s of th e ex em

pti on i f done by

af ar m er or on a f ar m a nd i nc ide nta lly

or in
co nju nc ti on wit h s uc h fa rm in g o pe rat io ns . Se e B re nnan v. Su ga r Cane G row er s Co op. of F

la. , 486 F
. 2d 1 006, 101 0- 11 ( 5thCi r. 197 3) ; H odso n v . E

wi ng , 451 F
. 2d 526, 529 ( 5thCi r. 197 1) ; B oy ls v

. W er tz , 352 F. 2d 63 , 63 (5th Cir. 1965 ). 1Some of the har vesting work w as perf

ormed by independe nt contrac tors from loca l suga r 2 cane millers who t hen transported t he cane to the mil l. I n W irtz v. Osceola Farms Co. , 372 F.2d 584, 5 8 9 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 9 6 7 ) , w e h e ld

th a t t h e h a u li n g o f r awc an e to a

mi ll w a s in c id e n ta l t o mi l l ing , not far ming, taking it outside the agr iculture ex emption. Here , howeve r, Sariol’s deliver y of fue l to the contra ct har

vesters is incidenta l to the primary ag ricultural a ctivity

of “ha rvesting ,” see 29 U. S.C. § 203(f) , qualifying his wor k as an e x empt seconda

ry activity
. W

irt z itself rec og nized this distinction in holding that other

drivers who transporte d labore rs and supplies for pur poses of the ha

rvesting wer e exempt. W

irt z , 372 F.2d at 589. 6 D el ive ri ng f

ue l t o f ar m m ac hin ery

a nd m ai nta ini ng e qui pm en t are , a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed , not onl y inc ide nta l t o S ugar Farm s C o- op’ s oper at ion s, but
ar e ab sol ute ly

ne ce ssary . W ith out

the se se rv ic es , w hich w er e pr ovi de d bo th t o th e Su ga r Farm s C o- op em

plo y ee s and its ind ep en de nt con tr ac tor s, the f ar m w oul d gr ind to a h alt. A s ar e su l t , S a r i ol ’ s a c t i vi t i e s c l e a r l y qua l i f y a s af or m o f s e c on dary agriculture. 2 Ne vertheless, there are lim its to th e brea dth of the secondary agricu l ture
ex em pti on. I t i s c le ar

f ro m the statut or

y de fi nit ionit se lf

tha t su chw ork m

ust be pe rf orm ed e ith er by a farm er or on a fa rm , an d that it m ust be re la te d to the ope ratio ns of the ve ry f ar m on wh ic h the em

plo y ee w orks. I n M

itc he ll v. H

unt sv ill e W hol es ale Nurseries, Inc. , 267 F. 2d 28 6, 290 (5th Cir. 19 59), f or exam ple, the em

ploy er qua lif ie d as a fa rm er be ca

use it ow ne d and o pe rate d anur se ry tha t gr ew , c ult iva te d,
an d sold its ow n prod

uc ts. H ow ev er , the nur se ry c oul d no t c la im

the e xe m pti on f or
em ploy e e s w ho s pe nt

t he i r t i m e p r oc e ss i ng n ur se ry s t oc k r e c e i ve d f

r om o ther farm s. Id
. T o be e lig ibl e fo r the e xe m pti on, “ the pr ac tic es in que sti on m ust r el at e toAl tho ug h Sa ri ol s pe nt t

he ma jor ity of his tim e de liv e ri ngfu e l to and se rv ic ingSug ar F arm s 3 Co- o p ’s eq u ipment, both parties ag ree that any time spent during the workw eek on none x empt activities would vitiate the exemption for the entire wee k. See Sk ipper v. Supe rior Dairies, Inc. , 512 F.2d 409, 411 ( 5th Cir. 1979). 7 the farm er’ s own farm ing operations and not to the farm ing op erations of others.” Id
. O the rw ise , the c ourt r ea sone d, the pr ac tic es w oul d be “ inc ide nta l to, or in c onj unc tio n
w ith , the farm in g op era tio n of the oth er

f ar m er s and n ot i nc ide nta l t o, or in
co nj unc tio n w ith , f

ar m ing ope ratio n of

the f ar m er s on w hose pr em ise s th e pr oc es sin g is don e. ” Id
. S ei zi ng u

pon thi s langua ge , S ar iol a rg ue s fir st th at the po rt ionof his tim e spe nt d el ive ri ng f

ue l t o in de pe nde nt co nt racto rs is re la te d to the “ farm ing operations of others” and therefore not exem pt. Sec ond, and alternatively , he argues 3 tha t c oope rativ e as soc ia tio ns l ike S ugar Farm s C o- op are barr ed f ro m cl aim ing the ag ri cu ltura l e xe m

pti on. N ei the r co nte nti on h as m er it. Fo r Sari ol’ s f

ir st arg um en t t o su cc ee d, w e w oul d have to ag re e th at i n d e pe nde nt
co ntr ac tor s c onst itu te the ir ow n se pa rate “ farm ing ope ratio ns. ” T ak ing a sni ppe t of the Co urt’ s language i n F arm er s R es ervo ir , he a rg ue s th at the ind ep en de nt
co nt ract or s ar e “ se pa rat el y org an iz edas a n i nd ep en de nt p ro du ct iv e act iv it y .” Far mer s Reser vo ir & Irr ig at io n C o. v. McComb , 337 U. S. 755, 761 (1949). He cites the fa ct tha t the ind ep en de nt con tr ac tor s ar e re spon sib le fo r the ir ow n w orkf

or ce a nd
e qu i p me n t( e x c e p tf

o r f u e l , o f c o u r s e )
. T h i s l a n g u a g e f r o m F arm er s R es ervo ir ,8

how ev er , de al s on ly withthe pr obl em of dis tin gui shi ng a gr ic ult ur al f ro m
nona g ri cu l t ural activities. Ther e is no such prob lem here. A s we noted abov e, Sari ol ’s job du ti es cle arl y qu al ify as s eco nd ary ag ric ul tu re. F arm er s R es ervo ir sim ply does not speak to the issu e of w hether the w ork of independen t contractors can be co ns id ered sep arat e far m in g o pe rat io ns . T w o so ur ce s of

auth ority sup port the c om

m onse nse vie w tha t i nde pe nde nt
co ntr ac tor s do not m ak e up the ir ow n se parate ope ratio ns. F ir st, the D ep ar tm en t of L ab o r ’ s r e g u l a t i o n e x p l a i n i n g t h e a g r i c u l tu r e e x e m p t i o n r e v e a l s t h a tC ongr es s int en de d in de pe nde nt c ontra ct or s to be tr ea te d li ke oth er a gr ic ult ur al e m plo y ee s: T he le gis la tiv e his tor

y m ak es it pla in tha t this langua ge w as part ic ularl y inc lud ed to m ak e ce rt ai n th at ind

ep en de nt c ontrac tor

s such as threshers of whea t, w ho travel around from farm to farm to assist farm ers in w hat is r ec ogni ze d as a pur el y

a gr ic ult ur al ta sk and a lso to as sis t a f ar m er in getting his agricultural goo ds to m arket in their raw or natural state, shou ld b e inc lud ed

w ith in the de fi nit ionof

a gr ic ult ur al e m plo y ee s. 29 C. F. R. § 78 0. 128 (e m

pha sis a dde d) ( quot ing Bowie v. Gonzalez , 117 F. 2d 1 1, 18 (1 st C ir
. 194 1) ). Be ca

use the ag ri cu ltura l a ct ivi tie s of ind ep en de nt c ontra ct or s, li ke those of em

ploy ees, are exem

pt, it w ould be senseless to draw a distin ction between
se co ndary

a gr ic ult ur al se rv ic es pr ovi de d to one but not the oth er , as Sari ol ask s us to do. T hat contractors are to be treated like em ploy ees also dem onstrates that, underCentral to our holdin g i s that Sariol spent all of his time on the Suga r F arms Co-op 4 operation, satisfy ing the separ ate r equire ment under the exemption t hat sec ondary agric ultural activities b e p er fo rm ed “by a fa rmer or on a fa rm.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(f) . Sariol’s arguments from case s where the exemption was denied for employ ees who worke d off the f arm a re the re fore inapposite. 9 Co ng res s’s u nd ers ta nd in g, co nt ract or s h ire d b y farm s d o n ot ca r r y o n th ei r own
se pa rat e far m in g o pe rat io ns . Se co nd, in de ci ding w he the r a subs idi ar y or it s pare nt c om

pa ny w oul d be
co nsi de re d a“ farm er ” fo r pur pose s of the ex em pti on, w e pla ce d gre at w ei ght on the subs idiary ’ s “ independ ence in decision-m aking.” Marshall v. G ulf & W . I ndus ., Inc. , 552 F. 2d 1 24, 126 ( 11th C ir
. 197 7)
. I n M ars hal l , w e he ld tha t the sub sid iary , be ca use it “ ow ne d a ll cr ops plante d, gr ow n, a nd h ar ve ste d, ” the re fo re ha d “ co ntr ol o ve r the farm ing op erations.” Id
. T his ind ep en de nc e and c ontro l m eant tha t on ly the
su bs id ia ry , no t t he p a r e n t co m pa ny, cou ld cla im

th e ex em

pt io n. Id
. B y

c ontra st, ind ep en de nt c ontra ct or s do not c ontr o l the f

ar m ing ope ratio ns. T he y

pe rf orm dis cr et e func tio ns a t the be he st and c ontro l of the f ar m ope rator , he re S ugar Farm s C o- op. T he re fo re , the w ork of the co ntr ac tor s c an not be vie w ed

a s se pa rate ope ratio ns, a nd the ti m e Sari ol s pe nt del ive ri ng fue l to the con tr ac tor s w as c ove re d by the e xe m pti on. 4 Sari ol’ s se co nd arg um en t i s th at S ugar Farm s Co-o p c an not qua lif y a s a

“ farm er ” unde r the e xe m ption d ef ini tio n be ca

use it is a co ope rativ e as soc ia tio n. Sariol re lies solely

on the F arm er s R es ervo ir decision, in which th e Cou rt held that1 0

the e m plo y ee s of

a n ir ri ga tio n c oope rativ e w er e not e nga ge d in th e pr ac tic e of ag ri cu lture , e ve n th oughthe c oope rativ e ha d be en cr ea te d and w as ow ne d by f ar m er s. F arm er s R es ervo ir , 337 U
. S. a t 76 8- 69. T he Co urt r ea sone d: The c ontrolli ng fact is that the com pany has been set up by the farm ers as a n in de pe nde nt en tity to ope rate an int eg rate d, uni tary w at er sup ply sy ste m . T he func tio n of suppl y ing w at er ha s thus b ee n di vor ce d by the farm ers fr om

t h e fa rm ing op eration and set up as a separate and selfco n t ai n ed ac t i v i t y i n wh i ch t h e f ar m er s ar e f

o rb i d d en , b y t h e c o m

p an y’ s by -l aw s, to int er fe re . T hose em plo y ed in tha t a ct ivi ty

a re e m plo y ed by t h e c o mp a n y, n o tb y th e f a rmer s wh o o w n t h e c o mp a n y. Id . a t 768. Looking to the legislative history of the exem ption , the Court also stated tha t “ [t ] he de ba te in both Hous es sho w s ac le ar a w ar en es s th at

the e m plo y ee s of farm ers co op erat iv e as so ci at io ns wou ld no t be ex em pt edas e m

pl oyees o f farm ers .” Id . at 7 69 n.1 9. Sari ol i nte rp re ts this c as e as pr ec lud ing a ll co op erati ve a sso ci at ion s f ro m cl ai m ing the e xe m

pti on. H ow ev er , it

is cl ear tha t F

arm er s R es ervo ir

stands fo r the
m ore lim ited p ro p ositio n that em ploy ees of agr icultural cooperatives are e m ploy ed by t he co op erat iv e an d no t by t he farm ers who crea te an d own th e co op erat iv e. To de te rm ine w he the r the e xe m pti on a ppl ie s, c ourts m

ust loo k to the a ct ivi tie s of

the
co ope rativ e; the m er e fa ct tha t i t i s ow ne d by

f ar m er s w ill not

suf fi ce . I n othe r w or ds, it is n ot the f

orm of the or ga niz at io n, bu t it s ac tiv iti es . I n F arm er s R es ervo ir , the1 1

Cour tf ound t ha tt he i rr i ga t i onc oo pe r a t i ve w a s no te ng a ge d i n a gr i c ul tur e . H e re, Su ga r Farm s C o- op c le ar ly is. Sari ol a lso dir ec ts o ur

a tte nti on t o th e D ep ar

tm en t of L abor’ s r eg ula tio ns, whi ch not e tha t “ em

plo y ee s of

af ar m er s’ c oope rativ e as soc ia tio n are not ge ne ra lly
en ga ge d in an y pr act ic es pe rfo rm ed ‘by a farm er’ wit hi n t he m ean in g o f se ct io n 3 (f).” 29 C
. F. R. § 78 0. 133( a) ( ci tin g F arm er s R es ervo ir ). T his regulation m erely restates t h e r u l e f r o m F arm er s R es ervo ir
. In fac t, the next subsection clarifies that [i] t is pos sible that so m e fa rmers’ cooperative associations m ay them selves engage in actual farm ing op erations to an extent and un der ci rc um stanc es suf

fi ci en t t o qu al if

y a s a“ farm er . ” I n su ch case, a ny of the ir e m plo y ee s w ho p er fo rm

pr ac tices as an inc ide nt t o or in co nju nc ti on wit h s uc h fa rm in g op er at ion s a re em pl oyed i n “ ag ric ul tu re.” 29 C.F. R. § 780 .133(b). Su ga r Farm s C o- op, w hic h w ith out do ubt en ga ge s in“ ac tua l f ar m ing operations,” is j ust the ty

pe of co operative association envisio ned by subs ection (b). T he re is no m er it to Sari ol’ s cont en tio n that al l coop er at ive as soc ia tio ns ar e ine lig ibl e for the exem

ption , and Sugar Far

m s Co-op is clearly

one cooperative that is eligib le. AFFIR MED.