United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment
(doc. 31) . The Clerk has given Plaintiffs notice of the
summary judgment motion and the summary judgment rules, of
the right to file affidavits or other materials in
opposition, and the consequences of default. Therefore, the
notice requirements of Griffith v. Wainwright, 772
F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), have been
Connie Sanchez and Glenda McNair were employed by Defendant
as Team Leads for the Patient Registration Department at St.
Joseph's Hospital and Candler Health Center,
respectively. (Sanchez Dep., Doc. 31-3, at 75; McNair Dep.,
Doc. 31-4, at 42.) As team leads, Plaintiffs oversaw
forty-two registration specialists ("registrars").
(Sanchez Dep. at 75.) Registrars are in charge of collecting
demographic,  medical, billing, and insurance
information from patients. (Id. at 86-88; McNair
Dep. at 43-44.) This information was used to provide medical
care and for billing purposes. (Sanchez Dep. at 86-88; McNair
Dep. at 43-44.)
duties included: (1) helping register patients during busy
periods; (2) delivering money collected from various
departments to the campuses' cashier; (3) confirming that
the money collected matched what each department reported;
(4) ensuring each department had a sufficient number of
registrars; (5) calling IT when the registration department
experienced computer problems; (6) ordering supplies; and (7)
learning the hospital's new billing software. (Sanchez
Dep. at 104-05.) The parties agree that Plaintiffs' most
important duty was ensuring each department had a sufficient
number of registrars. (Id. at 118-19; McNair Dep. at
92.) This involved Plaintiffs calling registrars to fill
empty shifts and rotating patients from one department to
another when a department was short-handed.(Sanchez Dep. at
100; McNair Dep. at 83, 115.) According to Defendant,
Plaintiffs had power to move employees from one department to
another depending on the amount of traffic in each
department. (McNair Dep. at 46, 83.) However, Ms. Allen
testified that Plaintiffs' decision was based on a
defined number of registrars that were supposed to be in each
department. (Allen Dep., Doc. 31-17, at 18-19.)
registrar called in sick or there was an opening in the
schedule, Plaintiffs called through a list of all
forty-Registrars to find a replacement. (McNair Dep. at 56.)
Plaintiffs would choose whom to call first based on who they
thought was most likely to agree to cover that shift.
(Sanchez Dep. at 174; McNair Dep. at 162-63.) The decision to
cover a shift was voluntary and registrars would frequently
refuse. (Sanchez Decl., Doc. 35-8, ¶ 4; McNair Decl.,
Doc. 35-9, ¶ 4.) Additionally, Plaintiffs had no
authority to decide a replacement was unnecessary. (McNair
Dep. at 160.) Therefore, finding someone to fill an empty
shift could take hours. (Id. at 57.) This duty took
up much of Plaintiffs' workday and an additional fourteen
hours on-call each week. (Sanchez Dep. at 118, 248; McNair
Dep. at 114.)
are no longer working for Defendant. Ms. McNair quit on
August 8, 2014, and Ms. Sanchez was fired on March 11, 2015.
(Sanchez Dep. at 222; McNair Dep. at 102.) On August 16,
2016, Plaintiffs initiated this action alleging that
Defendant failed to pay overtime as mandated by the Fair
Labor Standards Act (“FLSA")/ 29 U.S.C. § 201
et seq. Defendant now moves for summary judgment arguing that
Plaintiffs are exempt from the FLSA's overtime
motion for summary judgment will be granted if there is no
disputed material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Facts are material if
they could affect the results of the case. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) . The
court must view facts in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party and draw all inferences in its favor.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The movant initially
bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate the absence of
a disputed material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant must also show no
reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party on any of
the essential elements. Fitzpatrick v. City of
Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993).
movant carries its burden, the non-moving party must come
forward with significant, probative evidence showing there is
a material fact in dispute. Id. at 1116. The
non-movant must respond with affidavits or other forms of
evidence provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Id. at 1116 n.3. The non-movant cannot survive
summary judgment by relying on its pleadings or conclusory
statements. Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033-34
(11th Cir. 1981) . After the non-movant has met this burden,
summary judgment is granted only if "the combined body
of evidence is still such that the movant would be entitled
to a directed verdict at trial - that is, such that no
reasonable jury could find for the non-movant."
Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1116.
moves for summary judgment arguing that because Plaintiffs
fall under both the executive and administrative exemption,
they are not entitled to overtime.
FLSA was designed to introduce labor standards to eliminate
working conditions that threaten the "minimum standard
of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general
well-being of workers." 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). Under
the FLSA, an employee engaged in "commerce or the
production of commerce" must be paid time and a half if
she works over forty hours a week. 29 U.S.C. §
207(a)(1). However, the law does not apply to workers
"employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or
professional capacity." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).
under the FLSA are narrowly construed against the employer.
Walters v. Am. Coach Lines of Miami, Inc., 575 F.3d
1221, 1226 (11th Cir. 2009); Morgan v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1269 (11th Cir. 2008)
(“[T]he exemption is to be applied only to those
clearly and unmistakably within the terms and spirit of the
exemption." (internal quotation mark omitted)).
Furthermore, the employer bears the burden of proving the
applicability of an exemption and must do so by
presenting” 'clear and affirmative
evidence."' Birdwe ...