RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)

File Name: 19a0114p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

HOWARD HOLT; MARTIN ERSKINE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CITY OF BATTLE CREEK,

Defendant-Appellee.

┐

│

│

│

│

│

│

│

┘

No. 18-1981

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.

No. 1:15-cv-00931—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.

Argued: May 3, 2019

Decided and Filed: June 3, 2019

Before: GUY, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert Anthony Alvarez, Agustin Henriquez, Jr., AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC, 

Wyoming, Michigan, for Appellants. Gregory N. Longworth, CLARK HILL PLC, Grand 

Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert Anthony Alvarez, AVANTI LAW 

GROUP, PLLC, Wyoming, Michigan, for Appellants. Gregory N. Longworth, CLARK HILL 

PLC, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Howard Holt and Martin Erskine appeal from the 

judgment entered in favor of Defendant City of Battle Creek on Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendant 

>
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 2

violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., by failing to pay 

Plaintiffs overtime wages. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the decision of the 

district court.

BACKGROUND

Factual History

Plaintiffs Holt and Erskine each served as a battalion chief in Defendant’s fire 

department. Holt was the “suppression” battalion chief from 2007 until his retirement in 2015; 

Erskine became the “administrative” battalion chief in 2012 and has not retired. Battalion chiefs 

are second in command in the fire department hierarchy, behind the fire chief but ahead of other 

employees. Plaintiffs served under three different fire chiefs: Chief Larry Hausman from 1997 

through April 2013, Chief Jackie Hampton from April 2013 through January 2014, and Chief 

Arthur David Schmaltz from February 2014 through the rest of the time period at issue. 

I. Battalion Chief Job Responsibilities

The City of Battle Creek’s job description for battalion chiefs included the following 

summary of the position’s responsibilities:

Provides supervision to fire fighting personnel; Implements the incident command 

system and serves as incident commander at all incidents; Accepts responsibility 

for assigned administrative and fire prevention functions; Functions as the chief 

administrative officer of the department in absence of the Fire Chief and Deputy 

Fire Chief; Actively supports the decisions and policies of the City and fire 

administration and performs related work as required.

(Appellee Appendix, Joint Exhibit 5, A32.) The document also described essential job functions 

of the battalion chiefs, which included “[p]repar[ing] and administer[ing] disciplinary actions 

against subordinate personnel in the form of coaching and counseling, oral and written 

reprimands;” “[c]onduct[ing] evaluations of immediate subordinate personnel, review[ing] 

evaluations of other personnel assigned to shift, and provid[ing] feedback to subordinate 

personnel;” “[i]nspect[ing] fire stations, apparatus, equipment, and personnel to ensure 

operational readiness on a daily basis;” and “[p]lan[ning] and coordinat[ing] daily activities of 

shift personnel in concert with training, pre-plan inspections, maintenance, and public activities 
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 3

such as fire prevention.” (Id.) While Plaintiffs did not have direct authority to make hiring and 

firing decisions, they conducted performance evaluations that were used in the promotional 

process and were otherwise involved in advancement decisions. 

An internal department memo described the different areas of responsibility of the 

administrative and suppression battalion chiefs. Erskine’s responsibilities as administrative 

battalion chief included training fire department personnel, ensuring road safety, creating a “plan 

of the day” and “plan of the week” for the officers and firefighters, and approving vacation 

requests. As suppression battalion chief, Holt’s responsibilities listed in the memo included 

serving as the immediate supervisor for station officers, maintaining fire department standards, 

handling facility issues, and overseeing uniforms and supplies. 

Chief Hausman testified that the “primary responsibility” of the battalion chiefs and fire 

chief was “not physical work, it was . . . management and leadership,” and that the “majority” of 

their jobs consisted of “administrative functions, you know, management.” (R. 122, Hausman 

Deposition, PageID # 1012.) When called to a fire, a battalion chief’s role as incident 

commander, according to Chief Hausman, was to remain in the vehicle and “manage, lead, and 

direct” the fire suppression efforts by “monitoring the situation[ and] taking input from the 

company officers.” (Id. at PageID # 1013.) Chiefs Hausman and Schmaltz each testified that 

they gave particular weight to Holt’s recommendations regarding discipline; Schmaltz referred to 

the battalion chiefs as his “senior staff.” (R. 128, Transcript, PageID # 1077.) Holt and Erskine 

each testified that while they had the power to issue verbal and written reprimands, the ultimate 

decision as to discipline rested with the fire chief, and the fire chief occasionally overrode 

Plaintiffs’ disciplinary recommendations. 

II. Standby Duty 

As battalion chiefs, Plaintiffs were required to periodically serve on “standby” duty. 

Standby duty typically rotated between Holt, Erskine, and the fire chief, with the individual 

serving on standby required to be “on call” from 5:00 pm until 8:00 am the following morning 
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 4

for seven days.1 Plaintiffs received 1.5 hours of pay for each day of standby duty, in addition to 

overtime pay for hours worked if they were called back to active duty while on standby. The 

individual on standby duty was required to monitor a pager and a radio, answer phone calls if 

needed, and help handle problems if they arose. 

Plaintiffs were occasionally required to respond to the scene of a fire while on standby 

duty. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ activities were somewhat restricted during the weeks they were on 

standby. The officer on standby duty could not drink alcohol or go out of town. Plaintiffs both 

testified that they stopped playing organized sports while on standby, out of concern that they 

would not hear the pager if it went off while they were playing. Holt testified that when he and 

his wife went out to eat while he was on standby, they had to take two cars so that she would not 

be left stranded at the restaurant if he had to go to the scene of a fire; Holt’s wife testified that 

“when he was on call, we were pretty much prisoners right there in the house.” (R. 128, 

Transcript, PageID # 1104.) Mrs. Holt also testified that standby duty disrupted their sleep, 

because the pager would occasionally go off during the night if an “all stations” fire occurred. 

Chief Hausman’s testimony differed from Plaintiffs’ regarding the restrictiveness of 

standby duty. While Holt and Erskine testified that they continually monitored their radios 

during standby duty, Hausman testified that there was “no expectation [that] the radio [would be] 

monitored 24/7” during standby, because the pager provided sufficient notice of an alarm. 

(R. 122, Hausman Deposition, PageID # 1014.) Chief Schmaltz testified that he left his radio in 

his car when he was at home on standby duty for the same reason. Hausman also testified that 

other battalion chiefs had been able to engage in activities such as golfing and working on a 

horse farm while on standby. Hausman stated that standby duty was not so onerous as to prevent 

him from effectively using his time for personal pursuits. 

Procedural History

On September 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the City 

of Battle Creek had violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 

 

1

In 2015, the City of Battle Creek transitioned from the week-long standby system to 24-hour shift 

rotations, with battalion chiefs now paid for every hour they are on call. 
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 5

40 per week due to standby duty. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration on 

July 20, 2016 and a motion for summary judgment on November 13, 2017; the district court 

denied both motions. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that Plaintiffs were exempt from 

the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement under both the executive and the administrative 

exemptions. The district court also held that, even if Plaintiffs “were within the classes of 

employees subject to FLSA coverage, their duties during standby time were not so onerous as to 

prevent them from effectively using the time for personal pursuits.” (R. 129, Transcript, PageID 

# 1333.) This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION 

I. Applicability of the “Fair Reading” Standard

Standard of Review

“After a bench trial, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its 

conclusions of law de novo.” Foster v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 710 F.3d 640, 643–44 (6th Cir. 

2013). Because this issue involves a legal question, we review it de novo.

Analysis

The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime compensation to employees who work 

more than 40 hours a week. The FLSA exempts certain classes of employees from the overtime 

pay requirements. 29 U.S.C. § 213. Until recently, courts “narrowly construed [the exemptions] 

against the employers seeking to assert them.” See, e.g., Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, 

LLC, 506 F.3d 496, 501 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 

392 (1960)). In the 2018 case Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, however, the Supreme Court 

held that courts should apply a “fair reading” to the exemptions. 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142 (2018). 

The district court in this case followed the Supreme Court’s instruction to give the exemptions a 

fair reading, and under that standard, it determined that Plaintiffs were exempt from the FLSA’s 

overtime requirement under the executive and administrative exemptions. 

Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in applying the fair reading standard to the 

FLSA exemptions. According to Plaintiffs, the Supreme Court’s language in Encino endorsing a 
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 6

“fair” instead of a “narrow” construction of the FLSA exemptions is dicta as applied to anything 

other than the salesman exemption that was under consideration in Encino. Under Plaintiffs’ 

theory, all exemptions other than the salesman exemption are still subject to a narrow 

interpretation. 

Plaintiffs’ theory is incorrect. Even if the Supreme Court’s statement in Encino was dicta 

outside of the context of the salesman exemption, “[l]ower courts are obligated to follow 

Supreme Court dicta, particularly where there is not substantial reason for disregarding it, such 

as age or subsequent statements undermining its rationale.” In re Baker, 791 F.3d 677, 682 (6th 

Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting ACLU of Ky. v. McCreary Cty., Ky., 607 F.3d 439, 

447–48 (6th Cir. 2010)). Encino is a recent Supreme Court decision, and there have been no 

intervening Supreme Court cases casting doubt on its analysis. Moreover, this Court and others 

have applied Encino’s fair reading standard outside of the salesman exemption. See Mosquera v. 

MTI Retreading Co., 745 F. App’x 568, 570–71 (6th Cir. 2018) (professional exemption); Flood 

v. Just Energy Mktg. Corp., 904 F.3d 219, 228 (2d Cir. 2018) (outside salesman exemption); 

Carley v. Crest Pumping Techs., LLC, 890 F.3d 575, 579 (5th Cir. 2018) (Motor Carrier Act 

exemption). The district court was bound by the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Encino, 

and it did not err by applying the fair reading standard in this case.

II. Applicability of the Exemptions

Standard of Review

As explained above, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and 

conclusions of law de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Foster, 710 F.3d at 644. This issue involves 

the district court’s factual findings, so clear error review applies. Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. 

Worthington, 475 U.S. 709, 713 (1986) (“[T]he facts necessary to a proper determination of the 

legal question whether an exemption to the FLSA applies in a particular case should be reviewed 

by the courts of appeals [for clear error] . . . .”). “In [its] review of the district court’s factual 

findings, this Court gives due regard to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of 

the witnesses.” Perkins v. Am. Elec. Power Fuel Supply, Inc., 246 F.3d 593, 597 (6th Cir. 2001). 

“Clear error will be found only when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm 
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 7

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Max Trucking, LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Corp., 

802 F.3d 793, 808 (6th Cir. 2015). As the Supreme Court has explained:

If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record 

viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though 

convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the 

evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the 

factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.

Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573–74 (1985). Therefore, “when a trial judge’s 

finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of 

whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic 

evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can virtually never be clear error.” Id. at 

575.

Analysis

The district court found that Plaintiffs were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay 

requirements under both the executive and the administrative exemptions. Plaintiffs argue this 

was clear error.2 For the reasons set forth below, the district court did not clearly err in finding 

Plaintiffs exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements.

The executive exemption of the FLSA has four elements. 29 C.F.R. § 541.100. Only the 

second and fourth elements are at issue in this case. The second element states that an executive 

employee is one “[w]hose primary duty is management of the enterprise in which the employee 

is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof.” 29 C.F.R. 

§ 541.100(a)(2). The fourth element states that an executive employee is one “[w]ho has the 

authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the 

hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees are 

given particular weight.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(4).

 

2Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred by not “methodically dissecting and analyzing each 

separate workweek” to determine whether the exemptions applied at any given time. (Plaintiffs’ Br. at 34.) 

However, the section of the FLSA regulations that Plaintiffs cite in support of that proposition is not applicable to 

this case, because it only relates to the exemptions applicable to agricultural workers. 29 C.F.R. § 780.11. The 

regulations applicable to the executive and administrative exemptions, in contrast, state that an employee may be 

subject to the exemptions even if part of that employee’s time is spent performing nonexempt work. 29 C.F.R. 

§ 541.700.
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 8

A. Primary Duty

The district court found that Plaintiffs’ primary duty was managerial in nature, satisfying 

the second element of the executive exemption. The district court focused on the fact that 

Plaintiffs “were required to directly supervise lower-ranking officers and personnel, evaluate 

personnel, administer and enforce department policy, and coordinate the day-to-day operations 

of the department.” (R. 129, Transcript, PageID # 1321.) The district court pointed to several 

pieces of evidence and testimony that supported this finding. It noted that testimony established 

that the battalion chiefs were expected to “take charge and operate as the incident commanders at 

the scene of a fire.” (Id. at PageID # 1322 (internal quotations omitted).) Additionally, the 

district court stated:

Chief Schmaltz and Chief [Hausman] both testified that plaintiff Holt was “in 

charge” of all suppression personnel and plaintiff Erskine was “in charge” or 

“oversaw” the training division. Approximately 27 lieutenants and captains 

directly reported to plaintiff Holt[,] who monitored their adherence to standards. 

Moreover, Chief [Hausman] testified that if any fire fighter “had a problem[,]” he 

or she would take it to plaintiff Holt.

(Id. at PageID # 1322–23.) Finally, the district court recognized that even Plaintiffs had referred 

to themselves as “management” in a June 4, 2014 letter to Chief Schmaltz.

This evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ primary duty was 

management of the City of Battle Creek fire department. Plaintiffs argue that the district court’s 

conclusion was clear error because Plaintiffs’ “actual[] job duties, not the ones described in their 

[Standard Operating Procedures], were that of a regular rank and file firefighter, with [a] few 

added responsibilities for the sake of preserving order in chaos in a fire fight.” (Plaintiffs’ Reply 

Br. at 7.) In essence, Plaintiffs argue that the district court should have weighed the evidence 

differently to conclude that Plaintiffs’ primary duties were not managerial. This argument is 

unpersuasive. Ample evidence supports the district court’s conclusion, so this Court cannot 

second-guess the district court’s factual findings. See Anderson, 470 U.S. 573–74. The district 

court did not commit clear error in concluding that Plaintiffs’ duties were primarily managerial.
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 9

B. Recommendations Given Particular Weight

The district court found that the fourth element of the executive exemption was also 

satisfied. While the district court recognized that Plaintiffs did not have independent authority to 

hire, fire, or suspend fire fighters, it credited certain testimony as showing that Plaintiffs’ 

“suggestions and recommendations as to hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other 

change of status of other employees were given ‘particular weight.’” (R. 129, Transcript, 

PageID # 1324–25.) The district court stated:

Chief [Hausman] testified that plaintiff Holt was the person who was responsible 

for oral and written disciplinary proceedings of the fire fighters, and that Holt 

issued the “majority” of the discipline in the department. Chief [Hausman] 

testified that he gave “a lot of weight” to plaintiff Holt’s recommendation, that he 

did “not operate in a vacuum.” Chief [Hausman] also specifically testified that 

plaintiff Erskine, the administrative battalion chief, was responsible for managing 

vacation and “Kelly days” in the department.

(Id.) The district court also pointed to Chief Schmaltz’s testimony that he “specifically requested 

[P]laintiffs’ input concerning personnel decisions” and the testimony of the former employee 

relations director for the City of Battle Creek that Plaintiffs played a “significant role” in hiring 

decisions. (Id. at PageID # 1325.) 

Plaintiffs again argue that the district court’s conclusion was erroneous. Plaintiffs point 

to specific pieces of evidence purportedly showing that they did not have the requisite authority 

regarding personnel decisions under 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(4). Specifically, Plaintiffs highlight 

parts of their testimony in which they described times the fire chiefs overruled Plaintiffs’ 

disciplinary recommendations. However, this element of the executive exemption does not 

require courts to ask whether an employee’s recommendations as to personnel decisions were 

accepted every single time—instead, it presents the question of whether those recommendations 

were given “particular weight,” which is precisely what the district court found. This argument 

presents yet another example of the district court making a reasonable choice between two 

permissible views of the evidence. See Anderson, 470 U.S. 573–74. The district court cited 

sufficient evidence to support its finding that Plaintiffs’ recommendations were given particular 

weight. The district court did not commit clear error in reaching that conclusion.
No. 18-1981 Holt, et al. v. City of Battle Creek Page 10

Our determination that the district court did not commit clear error in finding Plaintiffs 

subject to the executive exemption is sufficient to uphold the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ 

claim for overtime compensation under the FLSA. Therefore, we need not address the district 

court’s additional conclusions that Plaintiffs were also subject to the FLSA’s administrative 

exemption and that, even if the exemptions did not apply, standby time was not so onerous as to 

be compensable under the FLSA.

CONCLUSION

The district court did not commit clear error in holding that Plaintiffs were subject to the 

executive exemption under the FLSA. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.