SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(US)(ca8) 284

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Linda Rapp – Appellant
Versus
Network of Community Options – Respondent



No. 20-2054 ___________________________

Linda Rapp; Craig Shumway; Karen Shumway

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Network of Community Options, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Batesville ____________

Submitted: April 13, 2021 Filed: July 8, 2021 ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Linda Rapp and Craig and Karen Shumway brought this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) case against their employer, Network of Community Options, Inc. (NCO). The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of NCO after concluding that Rapp and the Shumways had failed to put forth evidence establishing that they worked overtime hours and that NCO had constructive knowledge of their claimed overtime hours. We affirm.

I. Background

Rapp and the Shumways are employed by NCO as direct support professionals. Direct support professionals provide support and assistance to clients who are developmentally disabled. Rapp’s client is her adult son, C.R., who resides in her home. The Shumways’ client, J.C., resides in their home and is the ward of Karen’s mother.

The relationships between NCO and C.R. and J.C. respectively are described in each client’s plan of care. C.R.’s plan of care states that he is to receive forty hours of assistance per week from his direct support professional, Rapp. Rapp also provides “personal care” to C.R. for two hours each day in her separate role as an employee of White River Area on Aging. J.C.’s plan of care sets forth that he is to receive a total of 112 hours of assistance per week from a variety of direct support professionals. According to J.C.’s plan of care, Craig and Karen each provide J.C. forty hours of assistance per week as direct support professionals.

Rapp and the Shumways filed suit, alleging that they had worked overtime hours for NCO but not been paid.2 Rapp and the Shumways asserted that they were on duty around-the-clock to care for their NCO clients because the clients lived in

1 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 The parties agree that Rapp and the Shumways are non-exempt employees under the FLSA who thereby qualify for time-and-a-half overtime pay.

-2- their homes. As relevant to this appeal, Rapp sought ninety-eight hours of weekly overtime pay.3 Craig and Karen each sought twenty-eight hours of weekly overtime pay.4 In granting summary judgment in favor of NCO, the district court also concluded that Rapp and the Shumways were not entitled to the benefit of a three- year statute of limitations for willful violations under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) or to liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), see id. § 260.

II. Analysis

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Holaway v. Stratasys, Inc., 771 F.3d 1057, 1058 (8th Cir. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Although at summary judgment we take the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Holaway, 771 F.3d at 1059 (quoting To

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top