{"id":1451,"date":"2024-05-21T10:47:38","date_gmt":"2024-05-21T14:47:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1451"},"modified":"2024-05-21T10:47:45","modified_gmt":"2024-05-21T14:47:45","slug":"wisconsin-appellate-court-vacates-class-certification-order-and-finds-that-department-of-corrections-employees-are-not-entitled-to-additional-pay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/05\/21\/wisconsin-appellate-court-vacates-class-certification-order-and-finds-that-department-of-corrections-employees-are-not-entitled-to-additional-pay\/","title":{"rendered":"Wisconsin Appellate Court Vacates Class Certification Order And Finds That Department Of Corrections Employees Are Not Entitled To Additional Pay"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em><\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>On May 15, 2024, in McDaniel, et al. v. Wis<\/em>consin Department of Corrections<\/em>, No. 22-AP-1759, 2024 WL 2168148 (Wis. App. May 15, 2024), the <\/em>Wisconsin <\/em>Court of Appeals of held<\/a> that <\/em>the <\/em>Wisconsin Department of Corrections (\u201cWDOC\u201d) employees were not entitled to compensation for time spent waiting in line to get to security checkpoints; passing those security checkpoints; getting their daily assignments and equipment; and walking to their job stations.\u00a0 This decision further illuminates the scope of compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (\u201cFLSA\u201d) and its state law analogs. <\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs Nicole McDaniel and David Smith (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), both hourly employees, sued the WDOC for an alleged failure to provide them with compensation for their pre-shift and post-shift activities.\u00a0 These activities included waiting in line for and passing through security checkpoints; getting their daily assignments and equipment; and walking to their job stations.\u00a0 These activities took the employees anywhere between three and 30 minutes per day.\u00a0 Plaintiffs, believing they were entitled to additional paid time as a result of these activities, sued under the Wisconsin state wage and hour laws and the FLSA. After discovery, they moved to certify their purported class.<\/p>\n

In response, the WDOC argued that each of these pre-shift and post-shift activities were non-compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act and its state law equivalents.\u00a0 Their rationale was that \u201cthe principal activities for which an employee was hired, such as time spent commuting, time spent walking from the entrance of a workplace to one\u2019s assigned post, and other similar activities\u201d are excluded from the scope of compensable work activities.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *3. The WDOC, therefore, argued that the class should not be certified because the purported class members could not recover as a matter of law.<\/p>\n

The trial court disagreed with the WDOC.\u00a0 It held that it was \u201csufficiently plausible\u201d that the employees time was compensable and it certified a class comprised of \u201c[a]ll current and former non-exempt, hourly-paid [WDOC] employees who worked as security personnel in a correctional institution . . . in the State of Wisconsin.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *2.\u00a0 The WDOC appealed that ruling.<\/p>\n

Court of Appeals Opinion<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court\u2019s decision. It held that the trial court abused its discretion to certify the class.\u00a0 In so doing, the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk<\/em>, 574 U.S. 27 (2014), which sets forth the legislative intent for the Portal-to-Portal Act and its case law progeny.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals explained that \u201cthe Portal-to-Portal Act was created by Congress in direct response to a series of \u2018expansive definitions\u2019 of a \u2018workweek\u2019 under the FLSA.\u201d\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *3.\u00a0 There, the Supreme Court in Busk<\/em> unanimously concluded that participation in security screenings were not compensable activities that the employer hired their employees to perform.<\/p>\n

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals adopted the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning and reached the same conclusion.\u00a0 Indeed, none of the activities for which Plaintiffs sued were \u201cintegral and indispensable\u201d activities that the employees were hired to perform for the WDOC.\u00a0 Id.<\/em>\u00a0 Instead, the Court of Appeals reasoned that these activities were merely ancillary to Plaintiffs\u2019 job functions.<\/p>\n

In short, the Court of Appeals concluded that Plaintiffs could \u201cpoint to no questions of law or fact common to the class regarding activities at the start and end of the compensable work day\u201d and the trial court erred by certifying the class because the class could not recover as a matter of law.\u00a0 Id. <\/em>at *4 (internal citations omitted).<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

The holding in McDaniel, et al. v. Wis<\/em>consin Department of Corrections <\/em>has far broader implications than just the practices within the Wisconsin state correctional system.\u00a0 Employers, particularly those in Wisconsin, will often not be required to compensate employees for similar activities on the basis that those pre-shift and post-shift activities are exempt from the FLSA\u2019s reach.<\/p>\n

It is worthy of note, however, that corporate counsel must be confident in its determinations with respect to the FLSA, because a willful violation of the statute may result in increased liability for employers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0On May 15, 2024, in McDaniel, et al. v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, No. 22-AP-1759, 2024 WL 2168148 (Wis. App. May 15, 2024), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals of held that the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (\u201cWDOC\u201d) employees were not entitled … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Wisconsin Appellate Court Vacates Class Certification Order And Finds That Department Of Corrections Employees Are Not Entitled To Additional Pay”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1451"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}