United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
F. Cox United States District Judge.
Fair Labor Standards Act case, Plaintiff claims that
Defendants should have compensated her for overtime and for
time spent on-call. Discovery has concluded and Defendants
have moved for summary judgment. Because the issues have been
adequately presented in the parties' briefs and oral
argument would not significantly aid the decisional process,
the Court will decided Defendants' motion on the briefs.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).
reasons below, the Court shall grant the motion in part and
deny it in part. The Court concludes that Defendants are not
entitled to summary judgment in its favor on Plaintiff's
overtime claim because, construing the evidence in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff, there are genuine issues of
material fact for trial. But the Court shall grant
Defendants' motion as to Plaintiff's on-call time
claim because a reasonable jury could not conclude that
Defendants' on-call policy seriously interfered with
Plaintiff's ability to use her time for personal
January 2015, Defendant Hartford Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center offered Plaintiff Sheila Butler a position as a
Director of Admissions and Marketing. Def. Ex. B. The job offer
described the position as a full time, salaried-exempt
position. Id. At the time, Defendant also employed a
second Director of Admissions, Jessica Fairweather.
Fairweather Dep., p. 12. Plaintiff worked at Defendant
Hartford in this capacity until February 2017. Pl. Dep., p.
Hartford, the Director of Admissions is responsible for
patient referrals and for admissions department activities.
Def. Ex. D. The latter responsibility includes identifying,
soliciting, and maintaining relationships with referral
sources, such as hospitals and assisted living facilities.
Id. For example, Plaintiff would contact physicians
and social workers, accompany doctors at hospitals as they
visited patients, and conduct tours of Hartford's
facility. Pl. Dep., p. 48-49, 65. The Director is also
responsible for submitting daily and monthly reports about
admissions, discharges, and current patient insurance
information. Pl. Dep., p. 44-45; Toth Dep., p. 34-35. This
information would also be reported in daily calls or morning
meetings with supervisors. Pl. Dep., p. 46-47; Fairweather
Dep., p. 20.
Director's primary responsibility, however, appears to be
admitting patients who have been referred from other
facilities. Hartford receives patient referrals from other
healthcare facilities either via a computer program called
“ECIN” or via fax. Def. Stmt. of Undisputed
Facts, ¶ 9. According to Plaintiff, when Hartford
received a referral during work hours, she would view it,
identify the patient's insurance, and contact the insurer
to obtain any necessary authorization. Pl. Dep., p. 37-38.
Plaintiff would also fill out a form, developed by
Defendants, identifying the patient's medical conditions.
Id. at 39-40; Def. Ex. P. This “Admission
Screening Tool” contains explicit admissions
instructions for the Director. It specifies that patients who
have certain stabilized medical conditions should be
automatically approved. Def. Ex. P. Referrals for patients
who have certain other specified medical conditions or
treatments must be reviewed by a licensed nurse and/or
Director of Admissions, Plaintiff could admit patients if
their insurance was appropriate and if the Director of
Nursing approved. Pl. Dep., p. 37. Plaintiff could not deny a
referral without alerting corporate. Id. at 41;
Fairweather Dep., p. 17.
was responsible for admitting patients twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week. Def. Ex. D; Pl. Dep., p. 36. She was
expected to respond to at least 65 percent of referrals
within 15 minutes. Toth Dep., p 20. The Directors of
Admissions were on call for 24 hours a day on weekdays.
Id. at 126; Fairweather Dep., p. 16. Plaintiff was
also on call every other weekend, alternating with
Fairweather. Pl. Dep., p. 104.
received after hours referrals via ECIN or fax. Pl. Dep., p.
107. Referrals via ECIN were also sent directly to the
Director's phone whereas faxes went to Hartford's
facility. Toth Dep., p. 53. Plaintiff could respond to ECIN
referrals using her phone, id. at 43, but she did
not receive faxed referrals until she returned to work. Toth
Dep., p. 54. Over a two year period while Plaintiff was
employed (from February 1, 2015 through February 28, 2017),
there were 5, 878 referrals made via ECIN. Def. Ex. Q. All
but 178 of these referrals were made between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Def. Ex. R. Only 323 of the total
ECIN referrals were made on Saturday or Sunday. Def. Ex. Q.
Plaintiff left her position, she sued Defendants, arguing
that her job responsibilities entitled her to compensation
for overtime hours worked and time spent on-call and that
Defendants' failure to provide this compensation violated
the FLSA. Following discovery, Defendants moved for summary
judgment (Doc. # 38) and Plaintiff responded (Doc. # 40).
judgment will be granted when no genuine issue of material
fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists
where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Id. The Court “must view the evidence, all
facts, and any inferences that may be drawn from the facts in
the light ...