Opinion ID: 595568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Twenty Percent Limitation

Text: 15 The implementing regulations to section 7(k) provide that an employer is not entitled to an exemption for employees engaged in fire protection or law enforcement activities if those employees spend more than 20 percent of their total hours working in nonexempt activities. Specifically, this regulation, which is known colloquially as the 80/20 rule, provides: 16 Employees engaged in fire protection or law enforcement activities as described in §§ 553.210 and 553.211, may also engage in some nonexempt work which is not performed as an incident to or in conjunction with their fire protection or law enforcement activities.... The performance of such nonexempt work will not defeat [the section 7(k) exemption] unless it exceeds 20 percent of the total hours worked by that employee during the workweek or applicable work period. 22 17 We find that the district court erred in concluding that the 80/20 rule is inapplicable to rescue and ambulance service personnel. 18 This regulation does not specifically mention rescue and ambulance service personnel. It does, however, specifically refer to §§ 553.210 and 553.211. These two sections, first, define fire protection and law enforcement activities for purposes of the section 7(k) exemption and, second, bring rescue and ambulance service personnel under the section 7(k) exemption if they form an integral part of these activities. These two sections also specifically refer to § 553.215, which sets out the two-prong substantially related test, discussed above, for bringing rescue and ambulance service personnel under the section 7(k) exemption. Section 553.212, which sets out the 80/20 rule, immediately follows §§ 553.210 and 553.211 and almost immediately precedes § 553.215. We find that a consistent reading of this group of regulations requires that the 80/20 rule be made applicable to rescue and ambulance service personnel, whether they are brought within the section 7(k) exemption by § 553.210, § 553.211, or § 553.215. 19 Other courts that have considered this issue agree. As one court has said: 20 In practical terms, a holding that the 20% rule does not apply to § 553.215 would mean that the County is free to dispatch its EMTs and paramedics to do any job (road repair, sanitation disposal, parks and recreation) without fear of losing the 7(k) overtime exemption. Clearly, such a ludicrous result is not contemplated by the regulations at issue. 23 This same court went on to note: 21 Indeed, it would be anomalous to offer firefighters more protection than the ambulance service personnel whose status under the exemption is determined by the fact that they work in conjunction with the firefighting personnel. 24 22 We agree. The regulations clearly evince a design that if rescue and ambulance service workers are treated synonymously with firefighters or law enforcement personnel for purposes of section 7(k), they are also subject to the 80/20 rule that is applicable to these principal occupations. It would be patently unfair to extend the regulatory protection of the 80/20 rule to firefighters and law enforcement personnel who come under the section 7(k) exemption by specific congressional mandate, but not extend this protection to rescue and ambulance service workers who are brought under the section 7(k) exemption only by implementing regulation. We therefore conclude that the 80/20 rule does apply to ambulance and rescue service workers who are brought within the coverage of the partial exemption in section 7(k) by 29 C.F.R. § 553.215. 23 Having concluded that the 80/20 rule is applicable, we now consider what constitutes nonexempt work for purposes of determining whether the 20% test has been satisfied. The regulation provides that nonexempt work is that which is not performed as an incident to or in conjunction with [the employees'] fire protection or law enforcement activities. 25 The regulation also provides the following example of nonexempt work: 24 For example, firefighters who work for forest conservation agencies may, during slack times, plant trees and perform other conservation activities unrelated to their firefighting duties. 26 25 As this example makes clear, nonexempt work generally inures to the benefit of the employer. It is work that generally benefits the employer, which the employer requires its employees to do while they are not engaged in activities related to their fire protection or law enforcement duties. 26 It appears from the record submitted to the district court in this case that most of the EMT man-hours spent responding to calls is nonexempt work. For example, the work that the County has characterized as medical emergency hours 27 is nonexempt, as is the work that the County has characterized as accident hours. 28 These categories of work are nonexempt because they are unrelated to fire protection or law enforcement; they do not include time spent responding either to fires or to calls related to law enforcement, such as gunshots, hangings, stabbings, fights, and domestic disputes. 29 Likewise, time spent on patient transfers is nonexempt, as it is unrelated either to fire protection or law enforcement. Our conclusion that this non-exhaustive list constitutes nonexempt work is bolstered by the fact that, for most of these calls, the County no doubt receives payment from the patient whom the EMTs are called upon to assist; thus, the work inures to the benefit of the County. 30 27 In addition to determining whether hours spent responding to calls is nonexempt work, the district court on remand must also determine how to treat those hours when the EMTs are at work at the Service headquarters but are not responding to calls. 31 According to information provided to the district court by the County, these hours make up the great majority of the EMTs' working hours. The district court noted that the EMTs spend 8 hours of their 24-hour shift on dispatch duty. The regulations specifically provide that support activities [such] as those performed by dispatchers are not fire protection activities. 32 Accordingly, these 8-hour dispatcher shifts clearly constitute nonexempt work. The remainder of the hours spent by the EMTs awaiting calls, however, is related to fire protection or law enforcement in that the EMTs are awaiting fire and police calls just as they are awaiting medical emergency and accident calls. Thus, the station time that is not spent on dispatcher service is exempt work, except to the extent the County may require the EMTs to perform tasks that are unrelated to fire protection or law enforcement. 28 We find that the 80/20 rule works well in conjunction with the substantially related test of § 553.215. As we noted above, the substantially related standard does not delineate a specific frequency of occurrence which establishes regularity or specify what quantum of an EMT's total workday must be occupied in firefighting or law enforcement activities. By superimposing the 80/20 rule, only those public agencies whose ambulance and rescue service employees spend a substantial amount (at least 80%) of their work hours in related activities are eligible for the section 7(k) exemption. Thus, an EMT who is regularly dispatched to fires or crime scenes, but spends only a small fraction of his work hours on activities incident to or in conjunction with these type of calls does not come under the section 7(k) exemption. This interpretation of the regulations is not inconsistent with Congress' intent that rescue and ambulance service workers be partially exempt under section 7(k) only if their work is substantially related to that of the principal occupations covered by the exemption.