In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-1378C Filed: January 18, 2019 ) RICHARD W. ADAMS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); v. ) RCFC 56; Customs Officer Pay Reform ) Act (“COPRA”); Department of THE UNITED STATES, ) Homeland Security Appropriations Act. ) Defendant. ) ) Gregory K. McGillivary, Counsel of Record, Molly A. Elkin, Attorney, T. Reid Coploff, Attorney, Woodley & McGillivary LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. Mollie L. Finnan, Trial Attorney, Reginald T. Blades, Assistant Director, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Joseph A. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Frislanda Goldfeder, Of Counsel, United States Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRIGGSBY, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, border patrol agents working as canine handlers and instructors, bring this action against the United States alleging that the government has failed to compensate them for overtime worked, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”), and the Federal Employee Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5541-5550 (“Title V”). The government has filed a corrected motion for partial summary judgment and plaintiffs have filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the overtime pay cap in the annual Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Appropriations Act (“DHS Cap”) limits certain plaintiffs’ eligibility to earn or receive overtime compensation for each fiscal year within the claim period for this case, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS the government’s corrected motion for partial summary judgment on appropriations caps; (2) DENIES plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on appropriations caps; and (3) DENIES AS MOOT the government’s motion for partial summary judgment on appropriations caps. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 A. Factual Background 1. Plaintiffs’ Back-Pay Claims Plaintiffs—border patrol agents who work as canine handlers or instructors for the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”)—filed this action seeking earned, but unpaid, overtime compensation under the FLSA and Title V for work performed during the period 2011- 2016. Def. Mot. at 4. On April 23, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that calls for the payment of settlement funds comprised of back-pay, liquidated damages, attorney fees, expenses, and costs to certain plaintiffs (the “Settlement Agreement”). Def. App’x at A1- A11. The remaining plaintiffs—Roy Lopez, Scott Stacy, and Bryan Trujillo—have not yet resolved their claims and they seek a determination by the Court regarding whether the DHS Cap limits the amount of back-pay that they may receive under the Settlement Agreement. Pl. Mot. at 2. Specifically, plaintiff Roy Lopez seeks overtime pay for work performed during the period March 23, 2014, through September 5, 2015. Pl. Mot. at 6; Def. App’x. at A12. The parties have agreed to two different amounts to settle this claim. Def. Mot. at 2-4; Pl. Mot. at 6- ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals