Opinion ID: 806387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Collective Bargaining Agreements and the FMLA

Text: To the extent that the District argues that the CBA between Donnelly’s union and the District was effectively determinative of the number of hours Donnelly worked, we cannot agree. Noting that Donnelly was present on 172 of the 189 days of the preceding 15 school year, the District multiplies that number by the 7.25 hour work day provided for by the CBA, and concludes that Donnelly worked only 1,247 hours. The calculation, however, cannot stop there. With respect to the initial computation of the 1,250 hours, the regulations provide that [t]he determining factor is the number of hours an employee has worked for the employer within the meaning of the FLSA. The determination is not limited by methods of recordkeeping, or by compensation agreements that do not accurately reflect all of the hours an employee has worked for or been in service to the employer. Any accurate accounting of actual hours worked under FLSA’s principles may be used. 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(c)(1). In light of this clear instruction, we cannot conclude that, when computing FMLA eligibility, we are restricted to the hours identified in a collective bargaining agreement. The regulations specifically reject the proposition that a compensation agreement, such as the CBA in this case – the sole compensation agreement between Donnelly and the District – can conclusively determine the computation of hours required for FMLA eligibility, unless it “accurately reflect[s] all of the hours an employee has worked for or been in service to the employer.” Id. The regulation is clear: “all of the hours an employee has worked” must be counted, regardless of the provisions of an employment agreement. Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, in calculating the number of hours worked, “[a]ny accurate accounting of actual hours worked under FLSA’s principles may be used.” Id. The number of hours worked is thus a factual question, on which the CBA – while certainly evidence to be considered – is not determinative. 16 Although not a case concerning a high school teacher, the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Staunch v. Cont’l Airlines Inc., 511 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2008) – which appears to be the only reported appellate opinion construing 29 CFR § 825.110(c)(1)5 – is helpful by analogy. Staunch, a flight attendant for Continental Airlines, alleged unlawful retaliation after she took maternity leave. Id. at 627. The district court granted summary judgment to Continental in part on the basis of Staunch’s failure to meet the 1,250 hours threshold outlined in 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(A). Id. at 628. Continental showed, through flight records and the CBA that accounted for covered non-flight work for before and after the flights, that Staunch worked only 1,128 hours. Id. at 630. In response, Staunch provided her own “undated list of tasks and hours she compiled based on her own recollection,” that suggested significantly longer hours. Id. The Sixth Circuit ultimately concluded that Staunch’s assertions were insufficient to present a genuine issue for trial. That conclusion, however, was not based simply on the terms of the CBA. Rather, the court noted that the evidence Staunch presented was unreliable principally because her “general allegations regarding the additional hours she worked prove[d] to be inflated and unsupported” by the evidence. This evidence included not only the hours that flight attendants were expected to work under the CBA, but also evidence that Staunch sought (1) to double-count time she spent checking in for the flights worked, and (2) to include additional time “for customs/immigration processing in 5 The Sixth Circuit also cited 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(c) briefly and without relevance to the present case in Mutchler v. Dunlap Mem’l Hosp., 485 F.3d 854, 857-58 (6th Cir. 2007). 17 . . . Mexico, [and the] Caribbean” when she had not made trips to either destination during the relevant period. Id. Thus, the defendant in Staunch carried its burden, but did so by more than a reference to the plaintiff’s CBA: Continental made a tailored, individualized showing based on preexisting records of hours worked that definitively established that the plaintiff could not meet the 1,250 hour threshold. We adopt a standard similar to that expressed by the Sixth Circuit. In cases where a plaintiff avers that a relevant compensation agreement – including, as in Staunch, a collective bargaining agreement – “do[es] not accurately reflect all of the hours an employee has worked for or been in service to the employer,” 29 CFR § 825.110(c)(1), “the employer has the burden of showing that the employee has not worked the requisite hours.” Id. § 825.110(c)(3). As in Staunch, the employer’s burden is not heavy, but it is specific. To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, a defendant must show that, in the plaintiff’s specific case, either the hours alleged could not have occurred or the hours alleged are not compensable as a matter of law “according to the principles established under the [FLSA].” Id. § 825.110(c)(1). See also Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assocs., P.C., 274 F.3d 706, 716-19 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment where plaintiff averred coming to work fifteen minutes earlier than reported in her time sheets to accomplish office tasks that she and her coworkers testified were prerequisites to opening the office in time to receive patients). In this case, the CBA itself implicitly acknowledges that, on occasion, teachers will work outside of the seven hours and fifteen minutes anticipated by the CBA. It 18 provides that “[t]o the extent practicable, the time between the end of the pupil’s regular school day and the close of the working day shall be devoted to the said responsibilities.” The CBA thus clearly anticipates circumstances that will require a teacher’s time outside of the seven-hour and fifteen-minute workday, when it will not be “practicable” that the teacher’s responsibilities can be fulfilled in the hour after the students’ school day ends. The CBA is not alone in recognizing this reality. The FMLA regulations also expressly note the common understanding that “full-time teachers . . . of an elementary or secondary school system . . . often work outside the classroom or at their homes,” 29 C.F.R. § 825.110(c)(3), and that this reality informs the interpretation of FMLA eligibility. Donnelly, however, does not rely simply on generalizations about the work life of high school teachers. He avers that “most teachers” in the District “regularly work in excess” of the one hour beyond the students’ day provided for in the CBA, and that he himself “typically worked a total of 1.5 hours before and after class every day.” This claim, standing alone, would suffice to shift the burden to the District, but it is further corroborated by Chakar’s evaluation report, which acknowledged in writing that Donnelly regularly arrived at work early, and “often stays late into the afternoon working with his kids to ensure their success.” If Donnelly did indeed work an extra half hour per day beyond what the CBA required, over the 172 work days acknowledged by the District he worked far more than the three additional hours he needed to demonstrate FMLA eligibility. Moreover, since the discrepancy between the CBA calculation and the 19 eligibility threshold is only three hours, even a jury that believed that Donnelly’s claim of an extra half hour per day was vastly exaggerated could still rationally and indeed without difficulty find, informed by the common understanding embodied in the CBA and the regulations, that in the course of a year Donnelly worked at least three hours beyond what the CBA set as a maximum.