United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
GREGORY A. PRESNELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court, without a hearing, on the Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) filed by the Defendant,
Hartford South, LLC (“Hartford South”); the
Response in Opposition (Doc. 35) filed by the Plaintiffs,
Johnathan Humphries and Felix Roman; and Hartford South's
Reply thereto (Doc. 36).
South is a roofing and construction company located in
Orlando, Florida. Hartford South hired Roman on October 31,
2012, and hired Humphries on October 28, 2014. Both were
hired as roofers for projects in the Orlando area, and both
were laid off on September 28, 2015. (Doc 21 ¶ 17; Doc.
31-3 at 11-12; Doc. 31-1 at 28:21-4.)
South provides transportation for its employees in its trucks
to and from the jobsite. (Doc. 31-1 at 42-43; Doc. 31-3 at
24-29.) However, employees were not required to take this
transportation. If an employee drove his own vehicle or found
alternate transportation, he could arrive directly at the
jobsite and was not required to report back to Hartford
South's shop at shift's end. Hartford South's
trucks left the shop for the jobsite around 6:30 or 6:45 a.m.
Thus, if an employee wished to travel to the jobsite in the
trucks, he would arrive at Hartford South's shop between
6:00 and 6:30 a.m. (Doc. 32-1 at 60:22; 31-3 at 33:2-13.)
thirty to thirty-five employees would arrive at Hartford
South's shop to ride in its trucks, and out of those,
five or six would help load various items into the trucks.
(Doc. 31-3 at 45.) The materials that needed loading varied
on any given day, but often consisted of water coolers,
nails, glue, plates, screws, boards, towels, rags, rollers,
brooms, scrapers, and various other items. (Doc. 31-1 at 16;
Doc. 31-3 at 34.) Occasionally, they would load larger
building materials or a replacement generator. (Doc. 31-3 at
38.) If either Roman or Humphries were taking the trucks to
the jobsite, they would help load. (Doc. 31-5 at 43.)
allege that, during their employment with Hartford South,
they were not paid overtime for time worked in excess of
forty hours in a work week. (Doc. 21 ¶ 25.)
Specifically, Plaintiffs admit that they were paid for their
regular shift, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (Doc. 35 at
15-16.), but claim they were uncompensated for time spent
loading trucks at Hartford South's shop (Doc. 21 ¶
21-22) and time spent riding in Hartford South trucks to and
from the jobsite. (Doc. 21 ¶ 23.)
South argues that any time spent loading or riding in its
trucks to and from the jobsite is not compensable under the
Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254(a).
is entitled to summary judgment when it can show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(c); Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 20 F.3d
454, 458 (11th Cir. 1994). Which facts are material depends
on the substantive law applicable to the case. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The
moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine
issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Clark v. Coats
& Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991);
Watson v. Adecco Employment Servs., Inc., 252
F.Supp.2d 1347, 1351-52 (M.D. Fla. 2003). In determining
whether the moving party has satisfied its burden, the court
considers all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in a
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and
resolves all reasonable doubts against the moving party.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
party moving for summary judgment points out an absence of
evidence on a dispositive issue for which the non-moving
party bears the burden of proof at trial, the non-moving
party must “go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own
affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific
facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324-25 (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Thereafter, summary
judgment is mandated against the non-moving party who fails
to make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of
fact for trial. Id. at 322, 324- 25;
Watson, 252 F.Supp.2d at 1352. The party opposing a
motion for summary judgment must rely on more than conclusory
statements or allegations unsupported by facts. Evers v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 770 F.2d 984, 986 (11th Cir. 1985)
(“conclusory allegations without specific supporting
facts have no probative value”) (citations omitted);
Broadway v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 530 F.2d 657,
660 (5th Cir. 1976).
The Fair Labor Standards Act
§ 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201-19, “an employer may not employ his
employee for a workweek longer than forty hours unless his
employee receives overtime compensation at a rate not less
than one and a half times his regular rate.” Allen
v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1314
(11th Cir. 2007) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)).
“A person is employed if he or she is suffered or
permitted to work.” Id. (citing 29 U.S.C.
§ 203(g)). “It is not relevant that the employer
did not ask the employee to do the work, ” and neither
is the “reason that the employee performed the
work.” Id. “If the employer knows or has
reason to believe that the employee continues to work, the
additional hours must be counted.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
employee cannot be entitled to overtime compensation if the
work performed is not compensable. Brantley v. Ferrell
Elec., Inc., 112 F.Supp.3d 1348, 1369 (S.D. Ga. 2015)
(citations omitted). The Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 254(a), exempts specific activities from compensation