Court Opinion

ID: 9461914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:27:38.265021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:19.215167
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
While I agree with the result in this case and the reasoning of the majority as regards equality of job content, I cannot join in all that is said about the definition of “establishment.” Specifically, I do not think a reliable general test, designed to fit all FLSA cases, can or should be founded on the factual basis provided by this unique defendant — the school district. Since the opinion may be read as attempting such a test and since the test could conflict with administrative regulations and interpretation on the subject in certain instances, I am compelled to set out — to some extent repetitively — the factors that, for me, conclude the issue. First, the central administration acted as the hiring authority for all the schools in the system. Wage scales and job classifications were also set by the district administration office. The central administration assigned the individual janitors to schools and occasionally switched janitors from one school to another. According to one *59district official, janitors were expected to use whatever individual skills they had in dealing with maintenance problems before calling the district maintenance department. Although there is evidence that the maintenance department was often called even for minor repairs, to some extent the custodial service was functionally integrated into the centrally-operated, district-wide maintenance department. A district official also testified that evaluation of janitors for so-called merit increases was not solely in the hands of individual principals. In fact, the principals consulted and reached a decision with the Deputy Supervisor in charge of maintenance, an official with district-wide responsibility and one who received supply orders sent in by the janitors. Finally, on a broader scale, the schools in the district are under common control and a unified plan to provide educational services within the district.
On such facts, we cannot hold the court below clearly erroneous in finding the district one “establishment,” as appellant asks us to do. I stress again, however, my belief that other cases must await their day in court.