On September 30, 2023, the district court in the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of City of Vista Fire Department and against three Battalion Chiefs for the filed a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) alleging the City misclassified them as exempt employees and failed to pay them overtime. The City moved for summary judgment claiming the Plaintiffs qualified as exempt employees under the executive, administrative, and highly compensated employee exemptions of the FLSA. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the Department of Labor’s “first responder regulation” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(b) established a bright-line rule excluding all firefighters from FLSA exemptions.
The court held that the first responder regulation did not categorically exclude all levels of firefighters from exemption. Rather, FLSA exemptions turn on the nature of an employee’s actual primary duties, and as such, the inquiry is highly fact-specific. Here, Plaintiffs spent the majority of their on-duty time performing non-manual office work, including management tasks and “special projects” related to the administration of the Department. Critically, Plaintiffs spent an average of only 1.79% of their total shift time on emergency response. Based on these facts, the court held the Battalion Chiefs were not covered by first responder regulation. The court further held that these Plaintiffs met the three requirements to be exempt under the FLSA highly compensated employee exemption. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment for the City and dismissed the case.
FACTS
The Vista Fire Department Battalion Chiefs’ Duties were Primarily Managerial
A thorough understanding of Plaintiffs’ regular duties is essential to the exemption analysis as it depends on individualized circumstances. As Battalion Chiefs, Plaintiffs ranked third in the Department’s chain of command, under the Fire Chief and two Deputy Fire Chiefs. During the discovery phase of this case, Plaintiffs affirmatively admitted that they spent the majority of their on-duty time performing office or non-manual work including management tasks and administrative “special projects.” In contrast, they spent very minimal time performing emergency response duties.
Management Duties – Plaintiffs oversaw the operations of six fire stations, supervising six Captains (one at each station) and 12 to 24 Firefighter Engineers and Paramedics, including:
- Ensuring adequate staffing to respond to emergencies;
- Checking that no employee worked unauthorized overtime;
- Ensuring Captains were following Department polices and standards;
- Monitoring and evaluating Captains’ performance and issuing disciplinary actions;
- Coaching, counseling, and/or reprimanding lower ranked firefighters;
- Completing annual performance evaluations for Captains, which impacted pay;
- Reviewing Captains’ performance evaluations of lower-ranking members;
- Conducting trainings on effective emergency response and fire suppression operations.
Special Project Duties – each Battalion Chief was assigned non-manual office work necessary for Department operations in one of three areas.
- Records management – ensuring proper recordkeeping of fire incidents; generating summaries for the Fire Chief; learning and training staff on new software.
- Purchasing equipment and supplies – maintaining inventory; purchasing replacements as needed; ensuring all firefighters were adequately outfitted with PPE; tracking access.
- Maintaining fire engines and firefighting equipment – coordinating maintenance and repairs for all fire engines, scheduling testing and repairs for equipment; obtaining necessary certifications required for the firefighters to use their equipment.
Emergency Calls and Fire Suppression Duties – Plaintiffs spent an average of only 1.79% of their total shift time spent on emergency response, and their emergency duties differed significantly from those of the frontline firefighters they supervised:
- They were dispatched to less than 4% of emergency calls;
- They had discretion to add or remove themselves to and from an emergency call;
- When they did arrive on scene, Battalion Chiefs usually did not perform frontline firefighting work. Instead, about 75% of the time they acted as Incident Commander, a managerial role monitoring equipment, surveilling communications, and directing resources and medical personnel where they were needed;
- They were periodically deployed to help other fire stations at larger fires in neighboring areas or to the Strike Team to help in areas further away.
ANALYSIS
The First Responder Regulation Does Not Categorically Bar Firefighters from Exemption
The court first analyzed Plaintiffs’ contention that the first responder regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(b) creates a bright-line rule that all firefighters are barred from exempt status regardless of the primary duties of their employment. The regulation explains that FLSA exemptions do not apply to firefighters who perform work such as “preventing, controlling or extinguishing fires of any type” because “their primary duty is not management of the enterprise.”
The court found that the first responder regulation does not override the “primary duty test” that is used to determine exempt status. The court explained the plain reading of the regulation clarifies firefighters are nonexempt “if and because their primary duty is direct physical engagement with fires.” The regulation does not state that any worker within the firefighting field is automatically nonexempt. In fact, the preamble of the regulation explicitly states that certain “high-level police and fire officials” could be exempt if their primary duty consisted of “performing managerial tasks.” Therefore, the Battalion Chiefs could not rely on the first responder regulation to claim nonexempt status, and further examination into their primary duties was necessary to evaluate their claims.
The Vista Fire Battalion Chiefs Were Exempt Highly-Compensated Employees
Finding exemption was not barred by the first responder regulation, the court next analyzed whether the Battalion Chiefs qualified for the FLSA highly compensated employee exemption. 29 C.F.R § 541.601. The court found Plaintiffs satisfied each of the three elements as follows:
1) Annual compensation of at least $107,432 annually (at the time of the suit).
2) Customarily and regularly performed any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative, or professional employee. Here, Plaintiffs performed executive duties because their “primary duty [was] management of the enterprise,” they regularly directed the work of two or more employees, and their recommendations regarding hiring, firing, and changes in employment status carried weight. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(2)-(4). The fact that Plaintiffs were not involved in some personnel duties (i.e., promotions, investigations; labor negotiations; managing budgets, hiring, firing, setting pay levels) did not overcome this relaxed duties test.
3) Primary duties included performing office or non-manual work. Here, Plaintiffs admitted the majority of their on-duty time was spent on the managerial tasks and non-manual special projects, and only a de minimis amount of on-duty time was spent responding to emergency calls. The Battalion Chiefs’ “principal value” to the employer was in overseeing the operations and personnel of the six fire stations, not on-the-ground firefighting, and they were largely free from direct supervision.
The court frequently referenced two cases that provided guidance in its analysis. In Morrison v. Cnty. of Fairfax, VA, 826 F.3d 758 (4th Cir. 2016), the court found the fire captains were nonexempt because their primary duty was first response. On the other hand, Emmons v. City of Chesapeake, 982 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2020),held the battalion chiefs were exempt because they were the brain of the firefighting operation, and their primary duty was management, not frontline firefighting.
CONCLUSION
The court summarized its findings that the Vista Fire Department Battalion Chiefs were “high-level fire officials whose principal mission was to manage fire station operations and personnel to ensure their operational readiness to respond to emergencies.” These managerial primary duties removed Plaintiffs from the first responder regulation. Based on the specific facts of this case, these Battalion Chiefs qualified for the highly compensated employee exemption under the FLSA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were not entitled to overtime pay and the court dismissed the lawsuit.
