Sarah Block
Tue, 11/09/2021
Last week, the Court of Federal Claims issued two decisions denying the Government’s motions to dismiss the overtime claims of federal correctional officers at FCI Sheridan in Oregon and FCC Beaumont in Texas. The case brought on behalf of workers at FCI Sheridan is called Adegbite v. United States (No. 1:20-cv-01183-EHM), and case brought on behalf of workers at FCC Beaumont is called Alexander v. United States, Case No. 1:21-cv-01143-MBH. The correctional officers in both cases are represented by Molly Elkin.
In both cases, correctional officers assert that the Government has failed to pay them for pre-shift and post-shift work that is part and parcel of their principal job duty of safety and security of the Institution, staff, and inmates, or at the very least are activities that are integral and indispensable to their principal job duty. Specifically, the Government has failed to pay the officers for critical security-related work including: undergoing a pre-shift security screening to ensure no contraband enters the institution; collecting and donning required security equipment including a duty belt with metal chits and chains; obtaining paperwork and equipment at the control center; walking to and from their assigned posts inside the secure confines of the Institution while remaining vigilant, alert and ready to respond to emergencies, responding to emergencies, addressing inmate questions and correcting inmate behavior, and searching for security breaches and contraband; and engaging in a vital on-post information and equipment exchange with the outgoing correctional officer.
In denying the Government’s motions to dismiss the complaints in both cases, the Courts squarely rejected the Government’s arguments that, as a matter of law, these tasks do not constitute compensable work or that such work time is de minimis. Significantly, the Courts cited with approval the decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Aguilar v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 948 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2020), which held that clearing a required security screening site at a prison prior to the start of a prison guard’s shift constitutes a compensable work activity that would start the continuous workday.
The Courts also recognized that the correctional officers’ claims that their walk to and from assigned duty posts inside the secure confines of the institution before and after their scheduled shifts should be paid time were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, holding that during the walk the plaintiffs may be performing job duties which are tied to their principal activity of maintaining safety and security of the institution, inmates, and staff.
In addition, the Courts held that the correctional officers sufficiently alleged facts demonstrating the applicability of the continuous workday doctrine and that their unpaid, but compensable, work tasks were not de minimis under the three-part test set followed in the Federal Circuit. In finding the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that their pre- and post-shift work takes between 15-30 minutes on a daily basis, the Courts agreed that the plaintiffs were not required to allege the number of minutes that each individual, discrete work activity takes in order to survive a motion to dismiss.
Because the motions to dismiss have been denied, the correctional officers have cleared a significant hurdle in their lawsuits seeking unpaid overtime compensation. To read these important decisions, click here (Adegbite) and here (Alexander).
If you or anyone else you know has worked as a prison guard or correctional officer and has not been paid for their pre-shift and post-shift work, please reach out to MSE through our online contact form.
