finding “cross-trained firefighter/paramedics” had forward-looking responsibility to engage in fire suppression because they possessed advanced training, were regularly dispatched to fire emergencies, and could be disciplined if they refused to do so
How later courts described this case
- finding “cross-trained firefighter/paramedics” had forward-looking responsibility to engage in fire suppression because they possessed advanced training, were regularly dispatched to fire emergencies, and could be disciplined if they refused to do so
- requiring that exempt employees actually fight fires would result in emergency responders occasionally being assigned to fire suppression duties "for the sole purpose of exempting them from the FLSA forty-hour overtime standard"
- explaining that “§ 207(k) is part of the general FLSA overtime rule itself” and holding that the defendants had “properly raised [a] § 207(k) argument at the summary judgment stage and were not required to do so in their answer”
- concluding that a newly provided statutory definition appropriately rendered a regulatory definition obsolete
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join the opinion for the court fully. I make only this additional comment. It does seem to me that the statute is not unambiguous. Thus, if there were a reasonable administrative regulation, to which a court would owe deference, I would defer (even if the result were different from that which we reach in this opinion).