Filed: Mar. 17, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2003 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JERRY D. ORMSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 02-3139 v. (D.C. No. 01-CV-4029-DES) (D. Kansas) C.O.F. TRAINING SERVICES, INC., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1177 Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not mater
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2003 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk JERRY D. ORMSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 02-3139 v. (D.C. No. 01-CV-4029-DES) (D. Kansas) C.O.F. TRAINING SERVICES, INC., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1177 Defendant-Appellee. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materi..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 17 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
JERRY D. ORMSBY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 02-3139
v. (D.C. No. 01-CV-4029-DES)
(D. Kansas)
C.O.F. TRAINING SERVICES, INC., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1177
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Jerry D. Ormsby appeals from the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to defendant, his former employer, on claims for allegedly
unpaid overtime hours, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Portal-to-Portal Pay Act. Before we discuss the merits of plaintiff’s claims,
however, we must address defendant ’s claim to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Before the district court, defendant asserted immunity as an arm of the
state. The district court denied defendant immunity after analyzing defendant’s
arguments in light of the inquiry set out in Sturdevant v. Paulsen , 218 F.3d 1160
(10th Cir. 2000). Although defendant ultimately prevailed on the merits of
plaintiff’s claims, on appeal it reurges the Eleventh Amendment immunity claim.
We review these arguments de novo, see id . at 1164, and conclude that the district
court correctly rejected them. The district court expressed its primary reliance on
the first factor of the Sturdevant inquiry, i.e. , whether the state would be liable
for a money judgment against defendant . See Duke v. Grady Mun. Schs. ,
127 F.3d 972, 980 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating that legal liability for a judgment is
the most important factor). Defendant admits that the state would not be liable
directly, but argues that, because a vast majority of its funding comes from the
state, a money judgment against defendant could potentially impact the state
treasury. The focus of this inquiry, however, is the legal liability for a judgment,
-2-
not an indirect impact on the state treasury. See id. at 981. Therefore this factor
weighs against immunity.
The district court also considered the second factor–autonomy and financial
independence–using the four-part test as set out in Sturdevant, 218 F.3d at 1166.
After considering defendant ’s arguments on appeal, we agree with the district
court that only one of the four parts supports defendant ’s claim to immunity–its
state funding. Therefore, this factor does not weigh in defendant ’s favor. We
conclude the district court properly denied defendant ’s claim to Eleventh
Amendment immunity.
Proceeding to the merits, we also examine the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to defendant de novo. See Tool Box v. Ogden City Corp .,
316 F.3d 1167, 1173 (10th Cir. 2003). The district court granted summary
judgment to defendant based on its conclusion that plaintiff had agreed to a
working schedule which included unpaid “sleep time” hours–hours he had to
remain on the premises but was not required to perform routine duties. See
Braziel v. Tobosa Dev. Servs .,
166 F.3d 1061, 1063 (10th Cir. 1999) (applying
New Mexico law to conclude that sleep time constitutes hours worked, absent an
express or implied agreement to the contrary). Plaintiff argues that defendant ’s
employee handbook precluded the formation of implied contracts, a proposition
that the district court correctly rejected as a matter of law. We agree with the
-3-
district court that plaintiff has come forward with no legal authority to support
this proposition or its argument on appeal that Kansas law “requires a factual
inquiry more searching than that of New Mexico.” Aplt. Br. at 8. Plaintiff also
argues that there was a triable issue as to whether defendant intended to bar all
implied contracts. We disagree. Despite plaintiff’s assertion that it was
undisputed that “[d]efendant imposed a complete ban on implied agreements with
its employees through a comprehensive employee handbook,” Aplt. Br. at 4-5,
nothing in the language of the handbook on which plaintiff relied in its
arguments before the district court supports a reasonable inference that defendant
intended to bar all implied contracts. Because there was no triable issue of fact
underlying the district court’s conclusion that plaintiff had impliedly agreed to the
work schedule, including the unpaid sleep time hours, the district court did not err
in declining to submit the question to a jury. Cf. Dupree v. United Parcel Serv.,
Inc. , 956 F.2d 219, 222 (10th Cir. 1992) (submission to a jury not required when
evidence did not support existence of an implied contract) (quoting Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc. ,
477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)).
We need not address the balance of plaintiff’s arguments because they
challenge an alternate argument made by defendant in the event the district court
-4-
had concluded that defendant violated the FLSA. The judgment of the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-5-
