United States District Court, S.D. Florida
George Kirsham Harris, Luxon Luborieux, Arturo Lacayo, and Eric Gamarra, Plaintiffs,
v.
Swissport SA, LLC, and Swissport Cargo Services, LP, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Robert
N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge
Plaintiffs
Luxon Laborieux, [1] Arturo Lacayo, and Eric
Gamarra[2] all worked at the Miami International
Airport. Laborieux and Lacayo were involved with fueling
operations for Defendant Swissport SA; and Gamarra dealt with
cargo operations for Defendant Swissport Cargo. The
Plaintiffs claim the Defendants failed to properly compensate
them under the Fair Labor Standards Act for all of the
overtime hours they worked.
In
their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants claim that
none of the Plaintiffs qualify for overtime coverage because
they are exempt employees under the FLSA. The Court finds the
Defendants have demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact regarding the FLSA's executive exemption
and the Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing sufficient
to permit a jury to reasonably find on their behalf. The
Court therefore grants the Defendants' motion (ECF No.
46.)
1.
Legal Standard
Summary
judgment is proper if following discovery, the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits and
admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56.
“An issue of fact is ‘material' if, under the
applicable substantive law, it might affect the outcome of
the case.” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co.,
357 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (11th Cir.2004). “An issue of
fact is ‘genuine' if the record taken as a whole
could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving
party.” Id. at 1260. All the evidence and
factual inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157
(1970); Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d
1250, 1280 (11th Cir. 2004).
Once a
party properly makes a summary judgment motion by
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material
fact, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, the nonmoving
party must go beyond the pleadings through the use of
affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, and designate specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323-24. The nonmovant's evidence must be
significantly probative to support the claims. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The
Court will not weigh the evidence or make findings of fact.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Morrison v. Amway
Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 (11th Cir. 2003). Rather, the
Court's role is limited to deciding whether there is
sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could find
for the nonmoving party. Id. “If more than one
inference could be construed from the facts by a reasonable
fact finder, and that inference introduces a genuine issue of
material fact, then the district court should not grant
summary judgment.” Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort
Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 996 (11th Cir. 1990)
2.
The Plaintiffs have not established a genuine issue for trial
regarding the Plaintiffs' qualifications as exempt
executives under the FLSA.
Under
the FLSA, an employer must compensate an employee who works
more than forty hours a week at one and one-half times his
regular rate. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). However, any worker
who is employed as a “bona fide executive” is
considered to be exempt from this requirement. 29 U.S.C.
§ 206(a)(1). The regulations relating to the FLSA set
forth the criteria required to establish that an
“employee [is] employed in a bona fide executive
capacity”: (1) the employee must be compensated on a
salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week; (2)
the employee's primary duty must be management; (3)
either (a) the employee must have hiring and firing
authority; or (b) his suggestions and recommendations as to
changes in the status of other employees must be “given
particular weight”; and (4) the employee must
“customarily and regularly” direct the work of
two or more other employees. 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a).
A.
Compensation
The
parties acknowledge there is no dispute that the Plaintiffs
all received at least $455 a week.
B.
Managerial Duties
The
Department of Labor's regulations provide a long list of
nonexclusive activities that it deems managerial in nature.
29 C.F.R. § 541.102. These tasks include: training
employees; directing the work of employees; appraising
employees' productivity and efficiency for the purpose
recommending changes in status; disciplining employees;
apportioning work among employees; determining the type of
materials, supplies, machinery, equipment or tools to be
used; controlling the flow and distribution of materials;
providing for the safety and security of the employees or the
property; and monitoring or implementing legal compliance
measures. Id. The “[determination of an
employee's primary duty must be based on all the facts in
a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character
of the employee's job as a whole.” Diaz v. Team
Oney, Inc., 291 Fed. App'x 947, 949 (11th Cir. 2008)
(citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a)). The Defendants have
demonstrated the absence of a genuine issue of material fact
by submitting evidence, affidavits, and depositions that
demonstrate that the Plaintiffs all performed many of the
managerial activities listed in the regulations and that
these were in fact their primary duties.
Defendant
Swissport SA provides fueling services to airlines at Miami
International Airport. Both Laborieux and Lacayo were
initially hired as fuelers but later accepted promotions to
duty manager with Swissport SA. Regarding Laborieux,
the Defendants have set forth evidence that shows that as
duty manager he was responsible for:
• “the supervision and operations for the
Fuel[]ing Division at the Miami International Airport”
(Defs.' Stmt. of Mat. Facts ¶ 4, ECF No. 45, 2;
Laborieux Resume, ECF No. 39-1);
• “supervising] approximately one hundred
employees” (id.);
• “commanding] and deploy[ing] subordinate
personnel, apparatus and equipment within the division”
(id.);
• “actively work[ing] toward resolving personnel
issues and challenges by understanding company policy and
procedures related to the issues, and by utilizing good fact
finding and supervisory techniques” (id.)
• “establishing and maintaining professional
relationships with various department heads, division leaders
and liaisons” (id.);
• “corporate compliance with all federal, state
and local laws, policies and procedures with respect to
fuel[]ing operations at the Miami International
Airport” (id.; Laborieux Dep. 58:24-59:3, ECF
No. 43-1);
• “evaluating] employee performance annually and
continually monitor[ing] performance and mak[ing]
evaluations” (Defs.' SOF ¶ 4; Laborieux
Resume);
• “ensur[ing] that departmental goals are met to
track departmental progress” (id.);
• training Lacayo when Lacayo was promoted to duty
manager (Defs.' SOF ¶ 7; Lacayo Dep. 135:7-10, ECF
No. 44-1); . providing operational reports
at the end of every shift (Defs.' SOF ¶ 13;
Laborieux Dep. at 68:17-69:3);
• conducting safety briefings and performing regular
safety and quality assurance audits (Defs.' SOF ¶
14; Laborieux Dep. 77:13-17);
• enforcing company and airline safety and health
policies and procedures (Defs.' SOF ¶ 14; Laborieux
Dep. 58:19-22); and
• fielding telephone calls from Swissport SA customers
to resolve issues related to anything from malfunctioning
equipment and gate mix-ups to delays and staffing problems to
fuel spills (Defs.' SOF ¶¶ 11, 23; Laborieux
Dep. 57:5-58:18, 128:10-21).
With
respect to Lacayo, the evidence presented by the Defendants
establishes that he handled many of the same duties.
Specifically, Lacayo was responsible for:
• “running an effective and safe operation”
(Defs.' SOF ¶ 29; Lacayo ...