Opinion ID: 773633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the dwp

Text: 36 Seventeen plaintiffs were employed by the DWP. These plaintiffs were represented by the EAA in a single bargaining unit of Supervisory Professionals. There were approximately 100-200 employees in this bargaining unit with wages comparable to the plaintiffs'. The parties stipulated that the DWP had suspended three employees in the same bargaining unit for disciplinary violations. The DWP also employed management employees who were members of a different bargaining unit, and during the same time frame suspended four of these employees for various disciplinary violations. 37 The district court grouped both sets of employees, which resulted in a total of seven suspensions. The district court disregarded the suspension of one employee who had been subsequently reimbursed, leaving six suspensions that it held to be inconsistent with salaried status. Based on these six suspensions, the court found that the DWP was also engaging in the actual practice of making impermissible disciplinary deductions from the pay of purportedly salaried employees.
38 In reaching its determination that the DWP engaged in an actual practice of making improper disciplinary suspensions, the district court considered the suspensions of four DWP management employees, who were employees of a different rank and members of a different bargaining group than the plaintiffs. The DWP argues that it was error for the court to do so, as the managers were governed by a different collective bargaining agreement and because the factors that govern the discipline of a manager are distinct from -- and often more severe than -- those that influence the discipline of a subordinate. 39 The DWP's argument, however, is also foreclosed by our decision in Klem. Klem involved two related groups of plaintiffs -- nurses and managers -- who were both purportedly salaried employees and both subject to the same disciplinary procedures pursuant to Santa Clara County Ordinance. 208 F.3d at 1088. Klem held that suspensions of all purportedly exempt employees were relevant to answering the question of the employer's intent. Id. at 1095. In this case, even though the managers were members of a different collective bargaining unit, there is no evidence suggesting the managers were not governed by the same disciplinary guide as the plaintiffs. It was therefore not error for the district court to consider these suspensions.
40 One of the DWP managers was suspended for violating safety rules, procedures, or accepted practices, which results in injury, disability, or death, interruption or degradation of electric or water services, or damage to equipment or property. Although suspensions for violations of major safety rules are permissible under the salary basis test, 29 C.F.R. §§ 118(a)(5), the district court considered this suspension as improper because there was no evidence the safety rule violated was one of major significance. 41 The DWP contends it was error for the district court to have considered this suspension as improper, and we agree. On a motion for summary judgment, all inferences should have been drawn in favor of the DWP, the nonmoving party. Bagdadi, 84 F.3d at 1197. The description of the violation supports an inference that the employee violated a major safety rule, and thus the suspension should not have been considered inconsistent with pay on a salary basis.
42 The employees contend that the district court improperly disregarded the suspension of one DWP employee because the employee was subsequently reimbursed. We agree. 43 The employee in question was suspended for three days for requiring excessive supervision or instruction in performance of duties; failing to carry out assigned work adequately, directly or promptly; and unnecessarily disrupting the work of other employees. The employee's labor union then negotiated for a documented oral warning in lieu of an unpaid suspension. As the employees point out, the fact that the union was successful in reducing the penalty does not detract from the fact that the employee was apparently subject to reductions in pay for the quality of work, which is inconsistent with salaried status under the regulations. 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.118(a). Because there is no suggestion that the employee was reimbursed to correct an improper suspension of a salaried employee, the district court should have considered this suspension as evidence of an actual practice.
44 We are therefore left with seven total suspensions by the DWP, six of which violate the salary basis test. One of these six suspensions was for more than a week, which, as discussed in Section III.B. above, appears to have been the result of an erroneous legal interpretation. Three of the remaining five suspensions occurred prior to the mayor's directive which prohibited suspensions of salaried employees for less than a workweek. Construing all these circumstances in favor of the DWP as the non-moving party, we cannot say that the employees would be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A reasonable factfinder could infer from the facts and circumstances surrounding the suspensions that the improper suspensions do not amount to a pattern or practice of violations demonstrating an intention not to pay employees on a salaried basis. Klem, 208 F.3d at 1093-94. Summary judgment against the DWP is therefore reversed.