Opinion ID: 70428
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Length of Seasonal Operation

Text: 34 Even though Defendant has not shown that it is entitled to an exemption for the years of 1990 and 1991 based on its average receipts in 1989 and 1990, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to the exemption for the years of 1989 and 1990 since its operation does not last for more than seven months in any calendar year. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(3). There is no question of material fact as to the length of Defendant's seasonal operation in Sarasota. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. 35 The evidence shows that spring training in the sports complex in Sarasota begins and ends in March of each year. Defendant begins play in April and continues to play up to the end of August of each year. Accordingly, Defendant's operation at the baseball complex in Sarasota lasts approximately five months each year which is two months less than the seven month period afforded under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(3). 36 The fact that Plaintiff was employed in the off-season months relative to the preparation and maintenance of the baseball fields does not alter the Court's finding that Defendant's operation does not last longer than seven months in any calendar year. The focus on the exemption is not on the length of time Plaintiff performed his work. Rather, the focus is on length of the Defendant's seasonal operation. See Bridewell, Report and Recommendation at 10, citing Brock, 817 F.2d at 1259. It is the revenue-producing operation of the Sarasota White Sox as a professional baseball franchise which affords it the protection of the exemption. Id., Report and Recommendation at 8, citing Brennan v. Texas City Dike & Marina, Inc., 492 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1974). 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(3) does not require Defendant to completely shut down or to terminate every employee at the end of each baseball season. Id., citing Wage and Hour Opinion Letter No. 1361, Lab L.Rep. (CCH) p 30,974 (January 24, 1975). 37 For the forgoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant is an amusement or recreational establishment which is exempt from the mandatory overtime provisions of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a)(3). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 38 DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of November, 1994.