Opinion ID: 3033332
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Definitions of “Employee Engaged in Fire

Text: Protection Activities,” and Their Applications
[1] Section 553.210(a) defines an “employee . . . in fire protection activities” as any employee who: (1) is employed by an organized fire department or fire protection district; (2) has been trained in fire protection; (3) has the legal authority and responsibility to engage in the prevention, control, or extinguishment of a fire; and (4) who performs activities which are required for, and directly concerned with, the prevention, control or extinguishment of fires.10 29 C.F.R. § 553.210(a) (emphasis added). Section 203(y) states that an “employee in fire protection activities” is one who: (1) is trained in fire suppression; (2) has the legal authority and responsibility to engage in fire suppression; (3) is employed by a fire department of a municipality, county, fire district, or State; and (4) is either engaged in the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires or responds to emergency situations where life, property, or the environment is at risk. 29 U.S.C. § 203(y) (emphasis added). The parties agree that this case turns on whether Plaintiffs have the responsibility to engage in fire prevention as required by 29 C.F.R. § 553.210(a)(3) and 29 U.S.C. § 203(y)(2). To determine the meaning of a term in a federal regulation, we look to the common meaning of the word. See United States v. Willfong, 274 F.3d 1297, 1301 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Hoff, 22 F.3d 222, 223 (9th Cir. 1994)). The starting point for an examination of statutory meaning is the 10 Section 553.210(a) alternatively provides that § 207(k) also applies to “rescue and ambulance service personnel if such personnel form an integral party of the public agency’s fire protection activities. See § 553.215.” This alternative exemption cannot apply to the Plaintiffs because they are employed by the Los Angeles City Fire Department, and § 553.215 only applies to “employees of a public agency other than a fire protection . . . agency.” § 553.215(a). CLEVELAND v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 11113 text of the statute itself. See United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2004). Where “the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms,” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), because “courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there,” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992). The inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and “the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.” Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. at 240. “When a statute does not define a term, a court should construe that term in accordance with its ‘ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.’ ” San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). “To determine the ‘plain meaning’ of a term undefined by a statute, resort to a dictionary is permissible.” Id. at 1034. [2] The ordinary, common meaning of the word “responsibility” is “a duty, obligation or burden.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Houghton Mifflin 2000). Other dictionaries are to the same effect: • “A charge, trust, or duty, for which one is responsible,” Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed. 1989); • “Liability,” Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004); • “A thing or person that one is responsible for,” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (1986). Similarly, “responsible” means “expected or obliged to account (for something, to someone), answerable, accountable” and “involving accountability, obligation or duties.” Webster’s New World Dictionary, Third College Edition (1986). “Responsible applies to one who has been delegated some duty or responsibility by one in authority and who is subject to penalty in case of default.” Id. “The state or fact of 11114 CLEVELAND v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES having a duty to deal with something [is] . . . a thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role or legal obligation.” New Oxford American Dictionary (2001). “Responsible” means “having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one’s job or role.” Id.11 [3] Applying this ordinary, common-sense meaning, for Plaintiffs to have the “responsibility” to engage in fire suppression, they must have some real obligation or duty to do so. If a fire occurs, it must be their job to deal with it. The undisputed evidence shows that, among other things: 11 The City devotes extensive briefing to the possible legislative intent behind enacting § 203(y). The City contends, that in enacting § 203(y), Congress meant to ensure that the definition applied to dual function paramedics as well as firefighters. The City cites numerous congressional statements to support its contention that § 203(y) was intended to include dual function paramedics. See 145 Cong. Rec. E2343, H11499, and H2809. According to the rules of statutory construction, the court can only look to legislative intent when a statute is ambiguous. See HUD v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125, 132 (2002) (“[R]eference to legislative history is inappropriate when the text of the statute is unambiguous.”); see also W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 98-99 (1991) (The best evidence of [legislative] purpose is the statutory text adopted by both Houses of Congress and submitted to the President. Where that contains a phrase that is unambiguous — that has a clearly accepted meaning in both legislative and judicial practice — we do not permit it to be expanded or contracted by the statements of individual legislators or committees during the course of the enactment process.). However, because the term “responsibility” is not vague or unclear on these facts, the statute cannot be deemed ambiguous, and review of legislative history would be imprudent. See Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 964 v. BF Goodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group, 387 F.3d 1046, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Only if this organic approach leaves ambiguity — or, indeed, if it reveals it — may we turn to extrinsic indicia of legislative intent, like legislative history.”) CLEVELAND v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 11115
fighting equipment or breathing apparatuses;
ing single or dual function paramedics to a call;
patched to fire scenes and are dispatched only when there appears to be a need for advanced life support medical services;
wear fire protective gear;
variety of incidents (e.g., vehicle accidents and crime scenes) at which they are expected to perform only medical services; and
paramedic has ever been ordered to perform fire suppression. For these many reasons, the district court properly concluded that the City did not meet its burden of showing that Plaintiffs have the “responsibility” to engage in fire prevention, control, or extinguishment as required by 29 C.F.R. § 553.210(a)(3).
[4] Section 553.212 provides that an employee who spends more than twenty percent of his or her working time engaged in nonexempt activities may not be considered an “employee engaged in fire protection.” 29 C.F.R. § 553.212(a). According to § 553.212, if ambulance or rescue service workers fall within §§ 553.210 or 553.215, they are still entitled to § 207(a)’s regular overtime compensation so long as they spend more than twenty percent of their working time 11116 CLEVELAND v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES involved in nonfire suppression activities. Because Plaintiffs do not fall within the definition of either § 553.210 or § 553.215, we need not decide whether they spend more than twenty percent of their working time in nonexempt activities. See Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659, 672 (5th Cir. 2001).