[00:00:03] Speaker 05:
United States Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit is now opened and in session.

[00:00:08] Speaker 05:
God save the United States and this honorable court.

[00:00:14] Speaker 03:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:00:17] Speaker 03:
We have one case to be argued this morning, three others to be decided on the briefs.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
The case to be argued, if I mispronounce it, the name, Mr. Gould will correct me.

[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
Acton Panella, 2020-16-22.

[00:00:39] Speaker 03:
Please proceed, Mr. Gould.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:43] Speaker 04:
May it please the Court, I'm Jonathan Gould.

[00:00:47] Speaker 04:
I represent the plaintiffs in this case.

[00:00:50] Speaker 04:
When analyzing the totality of circumstances as to who benefits from an employee's meal break, the law says you're supposed to look at the combined effect of all the restrictions.

[00:01:01] Speaker 04:
on the plaintiffs during the break and not individualize them.

[00:01:06] Speaker 04:
Here, the claims court didn't do that.

[00:01:09] Speaker 04:
And although it said it did, it individualized each one of the restrictions on the plaintiffs.

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
Mr. Gould, do you think the proper test is the predominant benefits test?

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
I do, Your Honor, with one caveat.

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
And that is, it does not mean that the DOL and OPM regulations should not be considered, specifically the parts in which they advise employers that if you don't completely relieve someone from duty, then you have some obligations to consider paying them for their meal breaks.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
But the claims court,

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
applied predominant benefits tests and found that the times when officers had to perform duties were short in duration.

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
They weren't required to eat in the break room and they were free to roam the Pentagon and these were uncontested facts.

[00:02:14] Speaker 03:
So why wasn't it correct that she ruled on summary judgment that

[00:02:21] Speaker 03:
under the predominant benefits test, the breaks were predominantly for the benefit of the officers.

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
Because she did not, it was not in the record, the facts did not support the fact that they were absolutely free to roam wherever they pleased and at every opportunity.

[00:02:46] Speaker 04:
The chief testified that they could not congregate

[00:02:51] Speaker 04:
They could not do personal errands.

[00:02:56] Speaker 04:
They could not interact, therefore, with members of the public unless they were approached to perform a duty such as, and there was testimony to this effect, where they had to give directions.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
So they were performing some duties, not on all breaks.

[00:03:14] Speaker 04:
It was intermittent.

[00:03:17] Speaker 04:
But they were also restricted.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
in that they could only be in certain places at certain times and they could not perform errands.

[00:03:29] Speaker 04:
And these are distinct differences between the cases in which cited by the court in which officers or firefighters or other employees are uniform, armed, and the only restrictions on them is that they are

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
subject to call back, or that they have to monitor their radios to be subject to call back.

[00:03:53] Speaker 04:
So our case is different.

[00:03:56] Speaker 04:
Also, I'm sorry, go ahead.

[00:03:58] Speaker 01:
Go ahead, Judge.

[00:03:59] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure what your answer was to Judge Lurie's question about the difference between completely relieved and predominant benefit.

[00:04:09] Speaker 01:
The regulations do talk about completely relieved, but they're not, by their own terms, binding on us.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
Do you agree?

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
that the predominant benefit test is applied by the vast majority of circuits as the right test that we should be applying?

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
I don't necessarily agree with the test personally, Judge, but I don't think your question is what has the court said.

[00:04:31] Speaker 04:
The Court of Claims seems to have applied not only in this case, but in previous cases, which I understand at least at this point constitute precedent for the Court of Appeals the predominant benefits test.

[00:04:45] Speaker 04:
So I accept the test.

[00:04:48] Speaker 04:
I just don't accept the application of the test to the facts of this case and the way that the court ignored the regulation, the way the regulation should properly interact with that test.

[00:05:01] Speaker 01:
So the cases which are relying on the standby cases, it seems to me, particularly the Armour case,

[00:05:15] Speaker 01:
and the Skidmore case in the Supreme Court seem to involve very different circumstances.

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
That is, they involve situations in which the employee is on standby and hasn't been relieved by anybody else.

[00:05:29] Speaker 01:
Do you agree that it makes a significant difference that these officers were relieved while they were on break?

[00:05:36] Speaker 04:
I believe that could be one element that supports the employer, but the case should not stand or fall on that.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
because they were still on standby.

[00:05:48] Speaker 04:
And the regulations also talk about idle time.

[00:05:52] Speaker 04:
So it's not just standby, it's idleness.

[00:05:55] Speaker 04:
So that even when someone is idle, they could be providing a benefit to their employer.

[00:06:04] Speaker 04:
And in this case, they did.

[00:06:11] Speaker 04:
It had to be ever vigilant.

[00:06:12] Speaker 04:
They had to monitor their radios.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
They actually were subject to checks on their radios.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
And they had to be ready to support any emergency while they were on break.

[00:06:24] Speaker 04:
And they were restricted in the way that they could interact with people and other officers at the Pentagon.

[00:06:33] Speaker 04:
Also, you can't, and the court

[00:06:36] Speaker 04:
did not look at the particular ICE environment that you have at the Pentagon.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
This is the most highly secured military facility in the United States.

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
And if you look at the cases, such as the Lindell case, the older cases, but cases where in wartime, such as the Culkin case, where security was key, you'll see that the same, as opposed to cases where you're not in a highly secured environment,

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
you'll see that these personal restrictions, in addition to all the other restrictions, which the court just seems to pick off as if they don't exist or aren't important, such as remaining in uniform, being armed, again insufficient in and of themselves, but combined with the restrictions on the personal errands and other parts of their time, and also

[00:07:32] Speaker 04:
with regard to the fact that they, on occasion and intermittently, but often enough, were required to perform active police duties during their breaks.

[00:07:46] Speaker 03:
Mr. Gould, could I hear accurately, did you say that we were bound by the predominant benefits test

[00:07:57] Speaker 04:
Yes, if you accept the Court of Claims, the INIA case which was affirmed without opinion, which was in the Court of Claims, seemed to apply that test.

[00:08:09] Speaker 04:
So if you consider that precedent finding, yes.

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
And I do also concede that the majority of courts, except perhaps the 11th Circuit, have used that test.

[00:08:23] Speaker 04:
indicated that I thought fairly clearly, but maybe not clearly enough, that that is the test that we are applying in this case and that should apply, but we also feel that we met that test.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
Mr. Gould, excuse me.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Shaw here.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
I have what I guess I would call a mechanical type question to understand the background here.

[00:08:44] Speaker 02:
As I understand the officers work either a 12 and a half hour shift or an eight and a half hour shift.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:08:53] Speaker 02:
That is correct, Judge.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
And if you're on a 12 and a half hour shift, you get three breaks.

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
If you're on an eight and a half hour shift, you get two breaks, right?

[00:09:03] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:09:05] Speaker 02:
And I guess from what I'm understanding, the way this mechanically works is the officers, if you're on a 12 and a half hour shift, you automatically get paid for two shifts.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
And if you're on an eight and a half hour shift, you automatically get paid for one shift, for one break.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:09:26] Speaker 04:
Essentially, yes, although a better way of looking at it, Judge, is that you are on duty for eight and a half hours for the shorter shifts, and you get paid for eight hours.

[00:09:40] Speaker 04:
And for the longer shifts, you're on duty for 12 and a half hours, and you get paid for 12.

[00:09:47] Speaker 04:
I don't think there's a specific delineation as to which part of this

[00:09:52] Speaker 04:
which part of your breaks are being deducted from your pay.

[00:09:57] Speaker 04:
I think that's the best way of visualizing it.

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
Wait, wait, wait.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
In the eight and a half hour shift, you get two 35-minute breaks, correct?

[00:10:06] Speaker 01:
Correct, correct.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
And you're paid for one of those?

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
You pay for one plus, I guess, an extra five minutes.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
So 35 minutes.

[00:10:22] Speaker 01:
Mr. Gould, you talk about all the various factors here which are weighed in determining the result under the predominant benefit test.

[00:10:33] Speaker 01:
Is the weighing of those various factors a legal question or a factual question?

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
It's an application of the facts to the law.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
So I think both sides have indicated that that's a legal question for the court to decide, unless there

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
significant material facts in dispute, which I think we contend are not.

[00:11:00] Speaker 04:
I believe the government supports us in that, but I guess we'll hear from Ms.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
Creuser on that.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
But that's my understanding, except for the instance of Chief Cussie's testimony regarding their duty status, whether they're completely relieved or just on call.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
But as we've indicated since Chief Cussay was the 30B6 witness, then he's made an evidentiary admission that they're never completely relieved from duty during the time that they're on breaks as opposed to being on call.

[00:11:38] Speaker 04:
And that's a significant factor that the court ignored and claimed was immaterial.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
Again, it's not a factor in and of itself that indicates the plaintiff should win, but there's a factor that needs to be considered.

[00:11:53] Speaker 04:
If the Pentagon was not getting some benefit of the insecurity value of these officers being at the Pentagon at all times and being ready to support any contingency or emergency, why didn't they just relieve them from duty for 30 minutes?

[00:12:14] Speaker 03:
They could have easily done that.

[00:12:15] Speaker 04:
So they obviously were receiving some benefit from that.

[00:12:18] Speaker 04:
Council, I'm sorry.

[00:12:21] Speaker 03:
You said we apply

[00:12:23] Speaker 03:
Facts of the law, isn't it the reverse to apply law to facts?

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
I guess that's the difference.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
That's a technical question.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
We need to struggle with it.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
I think I've written it.

[00:12:38] Speaker 04:
Is the glass half empty or half full, I guess, Judge?

[00:12:42] Speaker 04:
My answer wouldn't matter, whichever.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
If I misspoke, I apologize whether you're applying facts to law or law to facts.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
I guess you are applying law to facts.

[00:12:53] Speaker 04:
But we're doing the same answer.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
Yeah, and I know it's difficult operating telephonically, but please try to be sensitive to a judge asking a question and stop and listen.

[00:13:04] Speaker 03:
And I think we heard your warning sign go on.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
And if you don't have any further questions, I'll reserve the rest for rebuttal.

[00:13:15] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
We will do that.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
Cruz.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honors.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:13:25] Speaker 00:
The appellants challenge the Court of Federal Appliances decision on summary judgment, but even with all of the circumstances described by the officers and stated in the record, they remain the predominant beneficiary of their meal brace as a matter of law.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
And I also, before I go any further, I'd like to correct... Is the weight of those various factors a legal question?

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
The application of law to the facts, is that a legal question?

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
As the trial court noted, on summary judgment, the court will determine whether the undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that the meal breaks are for what party benefits.

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
So to determine what counts as the predominant benefit one way or the other is a legal question based on if there's any disputed facts.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
Well, so the weighing, if the facts are undisputed, the weighing,

[00:14:21] Speaker 01:
of the various facts is a legal question.

[00:14:26] Speaker 00:
So weighing of the various factors would be based on different case law and determining, for example, carrying a radio.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
I'll try to answer my question.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
Is the weighing of the various factors, the application of the law to the undisputed facts, a legal question?

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
Yes, I believe so, Your Honor.

[00:14:51] Speaker 00:
To, if I may continue, I would just like to correct a statement that opposing counsel made where he indicated that the officers are not allowed to interact with the public or to not run errands.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
As we've tried to correct this in our brief and as the trial court held, that's simply not an accurate description of the officers.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
situation.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
They are able to appear in public and interact with members of the public and they can run errands.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
Chief Trusset actually testified that they can conduct personal business as they wish.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
So I just wanted to correct that statement.

[00:15:31] Speaker 00:
And going back to the test, the trial court did use the Tourette's standard to determine whether the officer has received bona fide meal breaks.

[00:15:40] Speaker 00:
I'm hearing from Mr. Gould's argument that he

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
says they argue that the predominant benefit test should be used but the court should consider that they were not completely relieved from duty and that seems to be still applying the Department of Labor interpretive regulations just calling the predominant benefit test and the trial court correctly understood that not need to

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
grant the officer's compensation if they have any restrictions or duties on their time whatsoever.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
The trial court recognized that it needed to determine which, as a matter of law, which party benefited the most.

[00:16:20] Speaker 00:
So as the tort of claims, the tort of federal plans, and many other surrogate courts have not required an employer to completely relieve an employee from duty during meal breaks.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
And this

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
issue of whether they're completely relieved from duty or not is simply a question of semantics at this point.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
If there's nothing, as the trial court properly recognized, it's not a material fact what the duty status is called by the agency, whether it's on duty or on call or being called back to duty during a break.

[00:16:59] Speaker 00:
The undisputed facts are that

[00:17:01] Speaker 00:
they are on their posts during their paid time, then they are relieved by a brazier officer who takes over that post, then they go on their break, and they have the potential to be called back from the break during an emergency.

[00:17:16] Speaker 00:
The question of what semantically that status is called by the agency, the trial court recognized that was not a material fact, and it considered what the officers do on their break instead of simply what it's called, and that was correct.

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
The trial court did not err in relation to anything evidentiary.

[00:17:36] Speaker 01:
Is it not the case that the officers testified they couldn't recall a time when they were interrupted on both breaks in an eight and a half hour shift?

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
There were many instances in the record as the trial court recognized that officers were testifying in their depositions that they had shifts when they were not interrupted.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
or they had at least one interrupted break.

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
Some of them could not recall being interrupted for long periods of time.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
So yes.

[00:18:09] Speaker 01:
But you're not answering my question.

[00:18:11] Speaker 01:
Is it correct that no officer testified that he or she was interrupted on both breaks?

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
Sorry, I'm trying to parse out the double negative there, Your Honor.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
I believe some officers.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
did testify that they had been interrupted on both breaks on intermittent occasions, yes.

[00:18:40] Speaker 00:
Does that?

[00:18:44] Speaker 01:
Do you have a site to the Court of Federal Claims opinion for that proposition?

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
I believe that looking at the, there's a section

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
Turning it on Appendix 30, the tort discusses the nature of the interruptions faced by the officers.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
And it's discussing that they have some generally shorter and frequent interruptions, but in general, they admit they had shifts where they were never interrupted or they had at least one interrupted break per shift.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
Cruz, do you agree that, do you think we're bound by any precedent regarding the predominant benefits?

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
This is a somewhat complicated answer, Your Honor, so I apologize for that.

[00:19:51] Speaker 00:
The issue here is that there has not been a, I would say a clear statement from

[00:19:58] Speaker 00:
this court regarding this statute as to what the test is.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
And Baylor, that was in the context of the federal, that was some of the court's claims in the context of the Federal Employee Pay Act.

[00:20:10] Speaker 00:
And in that case, the court didn't require compensation for breaks and thus the employee's free time was substantially reduced.

[00:20:17] Speaker 00:
Now this was used, this formulation was used in the FLSA context in Agner, which was affirmed without opinion by this court

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
But I don't, I believe that was, you know, that's unreported.

[00:20:30] Speaker 00:
So there's certainly precedent that the employer is not required to completely relieve an employee.

[00:20:39] Speaker 00:
But as to specifically the, for the FLSA in terms of, you know, whether it's predominant, how it predominantly benefits and how that folds in these cases about the time being substantially reduced.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
I would say that there is not a particular finding case specifically saying that.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
If we adopt that principle here, does that mean we need to invalidate the 78519 completely relieved regulation?

[00:21:16] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, because cases from other circuits have interpreted that completely relieved standard to mean

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
the predominant, that an employee is completely relieved when they're performing duties that predominantly benefit themselves.

[00:21:33] Speaker 00:
It's not necessary to invalidate it or say it's not being followed.

[00:21:38] Speaker 00:
This tort can recognize that.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
And also, as the trial tort did, holding in the Baylor, Amold, and Agner cases that use the formula of substantially reduced, the courts have recognized in other circuits, like the Fifth Circuit, that when

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
a officer is not potentially relieved from duties, they're following their own pursuits.

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
And when they're following their own pursuits, then they're pursuing activities that benefit themselves and they're predominantly benefiting.

[00:22:06] Speaker 00:
So as the trial court explained, these formulas have the same effect, which is determining which party predominantly benefits.

[00:22:14] Speaker 00:
The complete relief, the literal language of the regulation is simply inflexible and has not been followed

[00:22:22] Speaker 00:
Literally, so this court can follow that and say that it's not invalidating that, but it's an interpretive regulation and it doesn't need to be taken.

[00:22:30] Speaker 00:
Literally, the regulation says that any duty, whether active or inactive, requires compensation.

[00:22:37] Speaker 00:
And that would mean even listening to a radio during breaks could be an inactive duty.

[00:22:43] Speaker 00:
It's simply not a practical standard and it doesn't comport with the Supreme Court definition of work or

[00:22:50] Speaker 00:
the armor test that Supreme Court laid out there.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
Excuse me, this is Judge Schall here.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
You've been addressing the predominant benefit standard in response to Judge Lurie's question, and you heard what Mr. Gould had to say.

[00:23:10] Speaker 02:
At page 24 of his brief, Mr. Gould says that the predominant benefit test

[00:23:20] Speaker 02:
comes in as an exception to the FLSA completely relieved from duty standard when you have the situation of a law enforcement officer and he or she must remain in uniform during their break time or their meal time.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
Do you agree with what that approach that Mr. Gould lays out at page 24 of his brief, or do you understand him

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
an oral argument now to be saying, well, the predominant benefit test applies flat across the board.

[00:23:56] Speaker 00:
To answer the first part of that question, Your Honor, no.

[00:23:59] Speaker 00:
We do not agree with his framing of it on page 24.

[00:24:03] Speaker 00:
That's a, I would say, unique interpretation.

[00:24:06] Speaker 00:
There's no case that frames the predominant benefit test as an exception to the completely relieved from duty standard.

[00:24:14] Speaker 00:
And there's also

[00:24:16] Speaker 00:
numerous cases holding that employees who are remaining in uniform, subject to emergency callback, and have to talk to citizens are predominantly benefiting from their time.

[00:24:28] Speaker 00:
That's not a set of facts that assert some sort of exception.

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
As to what I'm hearing today at oral argument, I understand he's using the words predominantly benefit, but he seems to still be attaching some sort of

[00:24:45] Speaker 00:
wait to whether semantically an agency relieves an officer from duty, what they're, what they're calling that status.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
And, you know, if Chief Kusei, Chief Kusei testified that he did not believe there was a time the officers were completely relieved from duty.

[00:25:03] Speaker 00:
So, um, the appellant seemed to be putting great weight on just the terminology being used and saying that trumps everything else that

[00:25:12] Speaker 00:
the court shouldn't consider what they're actually doing during the break.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
And we disagree with that.

[00:25:17] Speaker 00:
If an agency's calling the break though that you're on call, it doesn't mean they're benefiting any more or less if they call it being on duty or not.

[00:25:26] Speaker 00:
The trial court properly looked at the totality of what the officers were responsible for and what they could personally do during breaks.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
So the predominant benefit test is more than just using the words duty or not.

[00:25:41] Speaker 02:
So you're saying it's the predominant benefit test right from the start with no ifs, ands, or buts?

[00:25:50] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:25:51] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:25:53] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:25:56] Speaker 00:
And also, just to clarify something about Chief Tussais' testimony, the agency is not bound by any legal conclusions of a 30B6.

[00:26:08] Speaker 00:
And also, I'd like to point out that the

[00:26:10] Speaker 00:
Trial court is not bound by any testimony of a 30B6.

[00:26:14] Speaker 00:
As we pointed out in our briefs, the King case explains this very well, but the court still has to apply the law and resolve legal issues independently of whatever a Rule 30B6 opponent says.

[00:26:26] Speaker 00:
So this idea that Chief Tuse can say, oh, I don't think the officers are completely relieved from duty.

[00:26:32] Speaker 00:
Now, in the next sentence, he says, I think they get bona fide meal brace.

[00:26:36] Speaker 00:
So the officers clearly don't want to rely on that part of his testimony.

[00:26:40] Speaker 00:
Simply what the deponent calls the breaks is not just positive.

[00:26:44] Speaker 00:
The court properly looked at all of the totality of the circumstances issues.

[00:26:49] Speaker 00:
The trial court did not ignore any cases.

[00:26:51] Speaker 00:
The cases raised by the officers are easily distinguishable.

[00:26:55] Speaker 00:
The Armour and Skidmore cases for the Supreme Court, as Your Honors noted,

[00:27:01] Speaker 00:
Both of those cases were about the basic idea that waiting in some circumstances can be work at all.

[00:27:09] Speaker 00:
It's not precluded under the FLSA from being worked simply because you're not producing something in a factory.

[00:27:15] Speaker 00:
Neither of those cases are about meal breaks.

[00:27:17] Speaker 00:
The officers would like to say, well, idle time can be paid in some circumstances, and we're idle during our breaks, so therefore, pay us.

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
And that skips the entire predominant benefit analysis laid out in armor

[00:27:30] Speaker 00:
in Stidmore.

[00:27:31] Speaker 03:
Where does the burden of proof fall?

[00:27:37] Speaker 03:
On which side does the burden of proof fall on predominant benefits?

[00:27:43] Speaker 00:
As the trial court noted, this court has not officially determined that, but the trial court found persuasive the Eighth Circuit's determination that the employee should have the burden

[00:27:56] Speaker 00:
because they best know what they're doing during their breaks.

[00:28:00] Speaker 00:
And if the burden was placed on the employer, that would paradoxically require them to supervise the breaks more heavily just to know what they're doing.

[00:28:07] Speaker 00:
So we would request that this court find that persuasive as well.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
I think I'm almost out of my time.

[00:28:14] Speaker 00:
If there's no further questions, Your Honors, I would conclude and say that this court should affirm.

[00:28:20] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:28:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:28:24] Speaker 03:
Mr. Gould has some rebuttal time left.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:28:28] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:28:29] Speaker 03:
Can you hear me?

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
I've taken myself off mute.

[00:28:33] Speaker 03:
Yes, I can hear you.

[00:28:34] Speaker 04:
OK, great.

[00:28:36] Speaker 04:
Great.

[00:28:38] Speaker 04:
First, with regard to Chief Cusse's testimony that attorney Cusse brought up, again, it's an evidentiary admission.

[00:28:50] Speaker 04:
Whatever he said about being a bona fide meal break, that would be a legal conclusion.

[00:28:55] Speaker 04:
Of course, he's not qualified to make.

[00:28:57] Speaker 04:
But he's the chief of the department.

[00:29:01] Speaker 04:
He, as a matter of fact, makes the rules about what an officer's status is while they're on break.

[00:29:08] Speaker 04:
And his rule is that they're not completely relieved from duty, that they cannot loaf, which I thought a break

[00:29:19] Speaker 04:
that I always understood is that you were allowed to vote.

[00:29:22] Speaker 04:
That was the purpose of the break.

[00:29:24] Speaker 04:
And they have to be seen at all times, including on break, as being diligent in their duties.

[00:29:32] Speaker 04:
So if these are the requirements of the Pentagon, there must have been a benefit that you could say all the other administration at the Pentagon thought they were getting.

[00:29:41] Speaker 04:
And indeed, they were getting by having these officers having this force at the Pentagon to prevent intrusions.

[00:29:48] Speaker 04:
to take care of emergencies, even if they didn't arise all the time.

[00:29:52] Speaker 04:
And the ironic thing is that because there were so many officers available to do that, at times they didn't arise very often and we can see that.

[00:30:01] Speaker 01:
As to the- We have a situation here where in an eight and a half hour shift, there are two 35-minute breaks.

[00:30:10] Speaker 01:
As long as they have one 30-minute break during that period, there's no obligation to pay overtime, correct?

[00:30:19] Speaker 04:
Right, as long as it's completely relieved from duty and the employer's receiving no benefits from whatever is occurring on the break, that is correct, Your Honor.

[00:30:34] Speaker 04:
As to the restrictions on personal errands, I refer you to the appendix on that, to Chief Cousey's testimony.

[00:30:45] Speaker 04:
I wouldn't have enough time to go through it,

[00:30:49] Speaker 04:
It starts at page 208 and 209.

[00:30:52] Speaker 04:
And the important point is that although there was a question about that included shoeshines and other personal errands as examples, the court read his testimony as being limited to shoeshines.

[00:31:08] Speaker 04:
But that doesn't make any sense, even if it was responsive to that question.

[00:31:13] Speaker 04:
It has to be greater than that, because any other personal errand

[00:31:17] Speaker 04:
an officer might be running would put him in contact with someone else, either a member of the public or another officer.

[00:31:28] Speaker 04:
And since he couldn't be seen doing that, obviously anything else, any other personal errand he could run during a break was impossible or violated the rules.

[00:31:38] Speaker 04:
So it's not only what Chief Cusse said, it's his description of the rule in his deposition that supports that

[00:31:46] Speaker 04:
court erred in ignoring all of that, or at least minimizing the importance of it.

[00:31:53] Speaker 04:
As to the issue about the exception that was brought up, there is the Naylor case that we cited, which is the only case that has a long discussion of this.

[00:32:09] Speaker 04:
And it did seem to indicate that the burden of proof, that it was an exception

[00:32:15] Speaker 04:
to the regulation and the burden of proof would be on the defense in that situation.

[00:32:22] Speaker 04:
So there is one case that has spoken for that.

[00:32:26] Speaker 04:
But again, I don't think that's dispositive whichever way the court comes out on that issue if you feel you need to reach it.

[00:32:32] Speaker 04:
I think the plaintiffs are successful no matter who has the burden of proof here because I think the facts were largely undisputed and the only disputed one

[00:32:43] Speaker 04:
since the court has to take a reasonable view of the evidence.

[00:32:49] Speaker 04:
And when you have a 30B6 witness as the chief of the department telling you what the rule is, it really can't be disputed from an evidentiary point of view.

[00:32:59] Speaker 04:
That's our point.

[00:33:00] Speaker 04:
And we keep being accused of making it seem like that that's conclusive on the court.

[00:33:07] Speaker 04:
It's not conclusive, but it is an element that the court neglected to consider, and it's an important element because without asking yourself that question, why is it the Pentagon requires these people to be on duty at all times?

[00:33:22] Speaker 04:
It must be getting a benefit out of it, and it is getting a benefit out of it because they're ready at any point in time.

[00:33:31] Speaker 04:
And there's an appearance for the public, the security of the public is also assured in that way.

[00:33:37] Speaker 04:
And that they're assured that there's an armed force there at all times to protect the Pentagon from any intrusions like it's had in the past on many occasions and could therefore have again in the future.

[00:33:52] Speaker 04:
So that's the reason, you know, it is an inference that the court may have to draw from the facts, but it's pretty clear what the environment is.

[00:34:00] Speaker 04:
And the court didn't even address it.

[00:34:03] Speaker 04:
And so that's also an error.

[00:34:06] Speaker 04:
it affects how this court might look at the wait or idle time.

[00:34:10] Speaker 04:
Obviously, if they're waiting to be called for an emergency or they're idle in order to assist in securing and making the public feel secure and actually making the Pentagon being secure, that's a benefit to the Pentagon during their meal breaks for which they should be paid.

[00:34:30] Speaker 04:
So for all those reasons, Your Honors,

[00:34:34] Speaker 04:
We submit to you that you should reverse the court of claims decision and rule that the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment should have been affirmed and send it back for other issues that we've indicated on liquidated damages and willfulness and the actual damages that still need to be calculated.

[00:34:54] Speaker 04:
I don't have anything further for the court, Your Honors, if there's any other questions.

[00:34:59] Speaker 04:
If not, thank you for listening to me.

[00:35:03] Speaker 04:
under these difficult circumstances.

[00:35:07] Speaker 03:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:35:08] Speaker 03:
We appreciate the arguments of both counsel and the cases submitted.

[00:35:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:35:14] Speaker 00:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:35:18] Speaker 05:
The honorable court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.