Opinion ID: 4505254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Work Zone employed Betts as a full-time Traffic Control Supervisor for more than eight years. His job duties included loading signage and equipment on to company trucks, driving to job sites, and unloading and placing equipment at job sites according to written traffic control plans. For most of those years, Betts worked as a nonexempt employee under the FLSA and received time-and-one-half for hours worked over 40 hours in a single work week. In April 2015, Work Zone reclassified Betts as a salaried employee, which meant he received no overtime pay. Betts objected to this classification. When Work Zone refused to pay him overtime, he hired an attorney who, in September 2015, sent Work Zone a demand letter. In December 2015, the parties reached a settlement under which Work Zone reclassified Betts as a nonexempt hourly employee and paid him overtime amounts he claimed. In May and June 2016, Work Zone assigned Betts to the Marksheffel Road job site in Colorado Springs, Colorado. During the week of May 22-28, 2016, the company assigned him to work a double shift, for which he claimed 92 hours of pay, including 52 hours of overtime. This prompted Work Zone to review Betts’ timesheet and the GPS for the company truck he was driving and determine Betts was claiming hourly pay for drive time between his home in Pueblo, Colorado and the 2 Marksheffel Road job site. Work Zone paid Betts in full for the week ending May 28, 2016. According to Work Zone’s Drive Time Policy and its official rules for claiming mileage, employees do not receive hourly pay for the drive from their homes to job sites. Instead, Work Zone pays them 10 cents per mile. But the company pays employees hourly for drive time at the beginning of a project when they haul equipment to set up a new job and at the end of a project when they pick up a completed job. Work Zone also pays by the hour when workers return to an existing job site if they are hauling additional equipment—more than a few cones or a sign—needed for the project. During the week of May 29-June 4, 2016, Betts claimed 59 hours of pay, including 19 hours of overtime. Work Zone did not pay Betts for 15 hours of overtime. On June 10, 2016, Betts called Work Zone owner, John Volk, to complain about the 15 hours missing from his paycheck. During the week of June 5-11, 2016, Betts claimed 75.5 hours of pay, including 35.5 hours of overtime. On June 15, 2016, Volk sent Betts the following text: Hey Betts, no more weekend time for paperwork and shop stuff make sure and get that done daily when your working! Also make sure if you are scheduled to work Sat you check with [Work Zone Managers] Mike and David as to whom is available and who had the least amount of hours will work. Then on the message Boards make sure if you have several to move around you get assistance working overtime for 7 hrs to move message boards at night buy yourself is not acceptable. If it was down for 5 weeks 3 we should be getting it done during normal working hours. That time like discussed is not billable time to our customers so it comes out of Wz pocket which in turn cost us to much money. Please try and maintain better time management and make sure we are keeping the hours down as much as possible. Thanks Jv R. Vol. 3 at 528-29. Betts claimed 72.25 hours of pay per week for each of the next two weeks— June 12-18, 2016 and June 19-25, 2016—which included drive time between his home and job site and replacing a headlight on his company truck at the shop on a Sunday. The morning of June 29, 2016, Betts said the following in a text to Bob Andrews, a Work Zone safety manager: I hate to tell you Bob. But life short I’m getting ready to go round two with JV he arbitrary three weeks ago took 15 hours off my weeks time sheet I can’t find where this 15 hrs are extra He’s going to have to prove it. I hope he’s wright. Pray for me. Thanks. R. Vol. 4 at 193. That same afternoon, Work Zone terminated Betts’ employment. The “Explanation of Violation” on the Employee Termination Form given to Betts contains a single word: “Insubordination.” R. Vol. 3 at 536. Work Zone eventually paid Betts for all the disputed hours he claimed for the week ending June 4, 2016. Betts sued under the FLSA alleging that Work Zone terminated his employment in retaliation for complaining that Work Zone failed to pay him for all the hours he worked during the week ending June 4, 2016. He also claimed the 4 company fired him because he hired a lawyer and demanded payment for unpaid overtime in September 2015. Work Zone counterclaimed for civil theft, conversion, and unjust enrichment, based on Betts’ claiming drive time between his home and job site. The district court granted summary judgment to Work Zone on Betts’ FLSA claim. Betts sought to appeal this summary judgment ruling in 2017, but we dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Work Zone’s counterclaims remained pending. See Betts v. Work Zone Traffic Control, Inc., No. 17-1463 (10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). Work Zone dismissed its counterclaims without prejudice, and Betts filed this appeal. But a dismissal without prejudice of the remaining claims in a multi-claim action does not render a judgment final. Heimann v. Snead, 133 F.3d 767, 769 (10th Cir. 1998). After we notified Betts of the still existing jurisdictional defect, Betts moved the district court to enter final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The district court certified its summary judgment ruling under Rule 54(b), which gave us jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Work Zone on Betts’ FLSA claim. See Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641, 645 (10th Cir. 1988).