Opinion
Case No: 2:18-CV-0157-TOR
01-11-2019
HOLLY SCHMEHL, Plaintiff, v. SPOKANE COUNTY and RICHARD LELAND, in his personal capacity, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: FLSA DAMAGES
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendants Spokane County and Richard Leland's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10). The Motion was submitted without a request for oral argument. In the Motion, Defendants request the Court enter partial summary judgment on the issue of damages available under the Fair Labor Standards Act for a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(r). As discussed below, the Motion (ECF No. 10) is granted in part.
Plaintiff Holly Schmehl is asserting a Fair Labor Standards Act claim based on an alleged violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(r). ECF No. 1-1 at 7. Section 207(r) requires employers to provide (1) a reasonable break time to express breast milk for 1 year after the child's birth and (2) a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public which may be used for such. Section 207(r)(2) provides that an employer shall not be required to compensate an employee for the break. The "Penalties" provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216, provides in relevant part:
Any employer who violates the provisions of section 206 or section 207 of this title shall be liable to the employee or employees affected in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
* * *
The court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.
Defendants request the Court enter an Order holding that "damages [] that can be recovered by Plaintiff [] under her [FLSA claim, 29 U.S.C. § 207(r)] are limited to (1) unpaid minimum wages, and (2) unpaid overtime compensation." ECF No. 10 at 1. Plaintiff filed a Reply, conceding: "Defendants are correct that damages [for the FLSA claim] are limited to the amount of Ms. Schmehls' unpaid wages, including any unpaid overtime, and attorney's fees and costs." ECF No. 12 at 1. Defendants filed a Reply clarifying "unpaid minimum wages" are recoverable, as opposed to "unpaid wages." ECF No. 13 at 2-3. Defendants also contend the issue of attorney's fees is not yet before the Court. ECF No. 13 at 3.
Title 29 U.S.C. § 216, unambiguously states that an employer is liable to the employee for "unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages." The statute further provides that "[t]he court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action." 29 U.S.C. § 216. As such, the Court finds that 29 U.S.C. § 216 provides an employee the following remedies for a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207(r): (1) "unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be," plus, (2) liquidated damages equal to this amount, and (3) "a reasonable attorney's fee" and costs. Given Plaintiff's concession, Plaintiff is limited to these remedies under her FLSA cause of action. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
In 2010, Congress amended the FLSA to include 29 U.S.C. § 207(r), but Congress did not amend 29 U.S.C. § 216 at that time. See Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, March 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119 at 577-578. This left what seems to be an accidental result as expressed by the Department of Labor: "Because employers are not required to compensate employees for break time to express breast milk, in most circumstances there will not be any unpaid minimum wage or overtime compensation associated with the failure to provide such breaks." See Reasonable Break Time for Nursing Mothers, 75 FR 80073-01. This has led at least one court to label Section 207(r) as "toothless". See Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, 2015 WL 6123209, at *28 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 19, 2015). Other statutes may fill that gap. See e.g., Mayer v. Prof'l Ambulance, LLC, 211 F. Supp. 3d 408, 416 (D.R.I. 2016); Clark v. City of Tucson, 2018 WL 1942771 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2018). --------
Defendants Spokane County and Richard Leland's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED IN PART.
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to the parties.
DATED January 11, 2019.
/s/
THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge