Baldwin v. Iowa Select Farms, L.P.

6 F.Supp.2d 831

Susan BALDWIN, Plaintiff, v. IOWA SELECT FARMS, L.P., Defendant.

No. C 97-3038-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

May 25, 1998.

Blake Parker of Blake Law Office, Fort Dodge, IA, for Plaintiff.

James H. Gilliam of Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  INTRODUCTION ......................................... 833
    A. Factual Background ................................ 833
    B. Procedural Background ............................. 834
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ....................................... 834
    A. Standards For Summary Judgment .................... 834
    B. The FLSA's "Agriculture" Exemption ................ 834
       1. The statutory framework ........................ 835
       2. Interpretations ................................ 836
          a. Supreme Court precedent ..................... 836
          b. Other courts ................................ 839
          c. Agency interpretations ...................... 840
      3. Applicability of the exemption here ............. 841
III. CONCLUSION .......................................... 843

Discrete from the other issues in this lawsuit involving gender discrimination and pay claims is the question on which the defendant has moved for partial summary judgment: Was the defendant exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., because the plaintiff was an "employee employed in agriculture"? The defendant — a limited partnership that runs a confinement feeding pork production enterprise through various facilities — asserts that the plaintiff cannot seriously contend that her duties raising pigs fell outside of the broad definition of "agriculture" in 29 U.S.C. § 203(f). The plaintiff, however, counters that the specialization, segmentation, and "industrialization" of the defendant's hog operations makes the "farm worker" exemption of the FLSA a painful fit when, as plaintiff puts it, the defendant's operation is about as remote from being a "farm" as Ford Motor Company is.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Factual Background

Although this matter is before the court on a motion for partial summary judgment, the parties do not assert that it is genuine issues of material fact that will be dispositive of the motion, but the court's legal interpretation of the scope of the "employed in agriculture" exemption to the FLSA's overtime pay requirements. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 213(b)(12) & 203(f). Therefore, the court may consider the present motion in the context of the following, essentially undisputed facts.

Plaintiff Susan Baldwin was employed by defendant Iowa Select Farms, L.P. (ISF), as a "Sow Farm Technician" at ISF's "Sow Site # 14" near Webster City, Iowa, from approximately July 5, 1995, until May 6, 1996. Although she states that she does not recall ever being given a job description, she concedes that the job description offered into the record by ISF accurately describes the work she performed for ISF, if it is limited to the handling of sows and the birthing of pigs. That job description is as follows:

Job Title: Sow Farm Technician
  Responsible to: Department Manager
  Primary Responsibility: Care and management
                          of animals and
                          facility to ensure
                          overall productivity
  Primary Duties
     *  Care and management of animals to ensure
        that
        — Animals are fed properly
        — Water is available
        — Sick animals are properly treated
        — Condition is evaluated and maintained
     *  Care and management of facilities to
        ensure that
        — Fans, curtains, heaters and other
        equipment are operating properly
        — Ventilation equipment is adjusted to
        provide proper environment
        — Facilities are kept clean, including
        power washing and disinfecting
     *  Maintaining accurate records
     *  Procuring, administering, and dispensing
        medications and vaccinations
     *  Hand mating and artificial insemination
     *  Heat detection and pregnancy check
     *  Monitoring and assisting in the farrowing
        process if necessary
     *  Processing/Castration of baby pigs
     *  Cross-fostering pigs
     *  Weaning pigs
     *  Creep feeding
     *  Animal movement
     *  Providing regular feedback to Department
        Manager
     *  All other duties assigned by supervisors
  Qualifications/Skills
     *  Ability to lift minimum of 40 pounds
     *  Ability to climb over 4 foot gate(s)
     *  Candidate must be
        — A self-starter, highly motivated
        — Very well organized
        — Dependable
        — Detailed [sic] oriented
        — Team oriented
  Attendance/Punctuality:
     *  Consistent attendance and punctuality
        necessary

Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts, (unnumbered exhibit, Bates # 0095). Baldwin was working on a "salary" for ISF. She asserts that during the time she worked for ISF, she was expected to work long hours, often in excess of forty hours per week, but she was never paid overtime. ISF concedes that Baldwin was not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of forty per week, but contends that she was exempt from overtime pay requirements. After what Baldwin describes as a particularly long week, she either quit or was fired from her job at Sow Farm # 14. However, the circumstances surrounding her termination are not at issue at this time.

Baldwin worked at only one of the kinds of facilities that make up ISF's confinement feeding hog production operation. ISF utilizes "three-site production" and "segregated early weaning" with the goal of disease prevention and management, which ISF considers critical to successful hog production. The first of the three sites is a breeding/gestation/farrowing farm ("sow farm"), like the one where Baldwin was employed. ISF owns or leases seventeen sow farms and is constructing four more. Pigs are weaned at the sow farms, and, at approximately sixteen days old, are moved away from the sow to ensure high maternal immunities, but low exposure to any diseases carried by the sow. Pigs are moved to an "off-site" "nursery farm," which has been depopulated, cleaned, and disinfected prior to arrival of the pigs. Pigs stay at the nursery farm for approximately six to eight weeks, but then are moved again to another separate "finishing farm" that has also been depopulated, cleaned, and disinfected prior to arrival of the pigs. When the hogs have reached market weight at the finishing farm, they are transported to a processing plant, where ISF's involvement with them ends. This production method, ISF asserts, breaks the cycle of disease that would be difficult to stop at a single-site confinement operation without completely depopulating the farm, including removal of breeding stock.

ISF describes its operation as consisting of seventeen farrow-to-finish hog production farms, either owned or leased by ISF. ISF states that it employs 612 full-time and 74 part-time employees. Each "sow farm" employs between nine and fourteen employees, including a farm manager, two department heads, and a number of breeding and farrowing technicians, such as Baldwin. Each "nursery farm" typically has between two and four employees, including a farm manager. Each "finishing farm" typically has between one and three employees, including a farm manager. Groups of the various types of farms are supervised by a sow, nursery, or finishing farm supervisor. ISF also has crews of employees dedicated to specific functions, including hog loading, barn cleaning, transportation, and manure application, in support of its primary hog production operations.

ISF maintains, and Baldwin does not dispute, that its sole business is confinement feeding pork production and functions related to such pork production. Its major production functions are the breeding of sows and gilts through artificial insemination; the farrowing of sows and the weaning of pigs; the growing of pigs and hogs in nursery and finishing operations; and the marketing of hogs. In support of these production activities, ISF also purchases feed and other supplies; obtains veterinary services from inhouse and local veterinarians; transports its weanling nursery pigs and market hogs between farms and to market in its own trucks and via common carrier; constructs new confinement operations; forward purchases or sells and hedges corn, soybean meal, and hogs; and applies manure from its farms to neighboring farmland with its own employees or through custom applications. However, ISF does not, for example, engage in meat processing, grain production or milling, or "finishing" of hogs for other producers.

B. Procedural Background

Baldwin filed her lawsuit against ISF on April 21, 1997, alleging gender pay discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and the Iowa Civil Rights Act. These claims are set forth in Counts I through III of Baldwin's complaint. Count IV of her complaint, however, is the only one at issue at this time. Count IV alleges that Baldwin is a non-exempt employee entitled to overtime wages under the FLSA, but that ISF has willfully failed to pay her that overtime for hours worked in excess of forty per week. On this count, Baldwin seeks unpaid wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages.

On March 2, 1998, ISF moved for partial summary judgment on Count IV of Baldwin's complaint. ISF contends in its motion that Baldwin was an employee employed in "agriculture," pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(f), and therefore is not entitled to overtime pay. 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(12). Baldwin resisted the motion for partial summary judgment on April 3, 1998. The court heard oral arguments on the...