Scott v. Balt. Cnty.

1

MICHAEL A. SCOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND Defendant.

Civil No. SAG-21-00034

United States District Court, D. Maryland

June 9, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stephanie A. Gallagher, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Michael Scott and other Class Members-all current or former inmates at the Baltimore County Detention Center (“BCDC”)-brought this class action against Defendant Baltimore County (“the County”). ECF 1. Plaintiffs allege the County violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (“FLSA” or “the Act”) and its state-law equivalent, by failing to pay them minimum wage and overtime when they worked off-site during their incarceration as work detail employees at the Baltimore County Department of Public Works's recycling facility. Id.

Following discovery, the County filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF 169. Plaintiffs responded and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF 175. The County replied and opposed respectively. ECF 180. With the permission of the Court, ECF 181, both parties filed amended oppositions and replies. ECF 183; ECF 185. Plaintiffs then filed a reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion. ECF 190. The County filed a surreply, ECF 193, and Plaintiffs responded, ECF 194. The Court has reviewed the motion and all of the related briefing and has determined that no hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons that follow, the County's motion for summary judgment ECF 169, will be GRANTED, and the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment, ECF 175, will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Baltimore County's Executive Branch is comprised of multiple agencies, including the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) and the Department of Public Works (“DPW”). See ECF 175-3 at 16^[1] (Deposition of former Baltimore County Administrative Officer Frederick Homan). DOC oversees the Baltimore County Detention Center (“BCDC”), where Plaintiffs served or are serving sentences as inmates. DPW operates the County's Material Recovery Facility (“MRF”), a recycling facility where Plaintiffs helped process collected recycled material by standing along conveyor belts and sorting trash from recyclable material. See ECF 175-1 at 30 (Deposition of John Jones, MRF Facility Manager).

According to the Defendant, DOC runs a Community Corrections Program that seeks to reduce the recidivism of inmates by providing work programs and resources to prepare inmates for reentry into the community. See ECF 169-3 at 8 (Deposition of Gail Watts, former manager of the program). The Community Corrections Program oversees work “release” opportunities, which enable inmates to work for private employers without DOC supervision if permitted by the sentencing court. See ECF 169-17 at 4 (Deposition of Audra Parish, Supervisor of the Community Corrections Program). The Community Corrections Program also operates a work “detail” program, which assigns supervised work assignments to inmates. See ECF 169-3 at 8-9. Work detail assignments have included assisting the County's animal shelter, loading shipments at the prison, maintaining the BCDC front lobby, setting up for events hosted by the Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce, and-relevant to this case-sorting recycled material at the County's recycling facility. See ECF 169-4 at 10 (Deposition of Justin Halligan, Community Corrections Program supervisor).

MRF first shifted to single-stream recycling in 2013 to encourage recycling by the County's residents. See ECF 169-10 at 7 (Deposition of Michael Beichler, DPW Chief of Solid Waste). Based on the record, operations of the facility generally went as follows. First, contractors collected recycled material from around the County, transported the material to the facility, and dumped the materials into an open bay/floor exposed to outside weather conditions. ECF 175-1 at 30-32. From there, County DPW employees transported the materials onto conveyor belts. Id. Both humans and machines sorted the recyclables, removing trash and separating the remaining recyclables into their respective materials (e.g., paper, aluminum). Id. at 34; see also ECF 175-6 at 20-23 (Deposition of Anthony Robinson, former MRF shift supervisor). Once sorted, the recycled material was gathered into a bale, which the County later sold to the highest bidder. ECF 175-1 at 35, 55.

Although the parties dispute specifics regarding the inmates' work experiences, Plaintiffs generally stood at the conveyor belts picking out trash from the recycled material brought into the facility. From the record it appears that work detail inmates worked approximately nine-to-ten hours a day (including breaks), and worked closer to eleven-to-twelve hours a day during the holiday season, when DPW anticipated an increase in recycling. See ECF 175-1 at 94-95, 10203, 106; ECF 175-6 at 27-28; see also ECF 175-28 at 16 (email from DOC supervisor to DPW noting “we are prepared to increase the number of inmate workers at MES to a minimum of 30 per day, working 10 hours six days a week.”). DPW requested from DOC the additional work hours from the inmates during the busier holiday season, which DOC typically accommodated. See ECF 175-1 at 108.

Plaintiffs worked alongside temporary employees hired by DPW to perform the same job for fewer hours, in exchange for minimum wage. ECF 175-55 ¶ 8.

The recycling facility was open-air, causing especially cold working conditions in the winter. ECF 175-6 at 82. Inmates changed into street clothes for their work detail; however, they had to provide their own clothes from family and friends. ECF 175-55 ¶ 6 (Decl. of Pl. Scott). Keeping warm was a challenge, and DOC at times failed to provide sufficient clothing. ECF 17539 at 3 (Community Corrections Supervisor, Audra Parrish, suggesting a clothing drive to collect clothing for the MRF work detail inmates “because the supply is diminishing and the sizes are limited,” and providing the anecdote that “a pair of female dress pants was issued to one of the [MRF] workers so he could go out to [MRF] the next day.”). Plaintiff Scott describes that inmates sometimes grabbed coats and other discarded clothing that came through on the conveyor belt to better protect themselves from the cold conditions. ECF 175-55 ¶ 6.

It is unclear from the record the degree of actual supervision exercised by DOC over its work detail inmates at the MRF. Mr. Dias, a DOC correctional officer, reports that DOC supervised inmates at all times during the workday, and he conducted head counts of the inmates every 20-30 minutes while circulating throughout the work area to check for security issues or misconduct. ECF 169-26 ¶¶ 21-22. In contrast, Plaintiff Scott reports “extremely limited” interaction with the correctional officers, because they would “generally sit in the office and/or break room at the MRF while the other inmates and I were working at the recycling facility.” ECF 175-55 ¶ 10. Plaintiff Scott further notes, “The correctional officers were not consistently present or supervising the inmates at the MRF. It would have been very easy to just walk-off. There were no check-points, and anybody could (and frequently did) just drive into the MRF. I was amazed by the lack of security.” Id. Although the parties dispute the degree of supervision, they agree that DOC and DPW could remove inmates from the work detail at the recycling center for poor performance, bad behavior, or some other infraction. ECF 175-55 ¶ 4; ECF 169-26 ¶ 24.

Inmates ate their breakfasts at BCDC before leaving early in the morning for their recycling shifts, and they received dinner when they returned from their shifts. ECF 169-25 at 6-7 (Deposition of Pl. Scott); ECF 175-55 ¶ 15. Mr. Dias reports that DOC provided inmates with a bagged lunch from the BCDC kitchen for the workday. ECF 169-26 ¶ 13. According to Plaintiff Scott, this bagged lunch typically consisted of bologna sandwiches that the inmates called “sweaty betty[s],” ECF 175-55 ¶ 11; ECF 175-6 at 137, which were at times missing from their bags, ECF 175-41 at 5 (email from DOC supervisor Ms. Parish noting complaints from inmates). Inmates complained that these small, bagged lunches were insufficient sustenance for the long workdays. ECF 175-14 at 46 (Deposition of Philip Pokorny, former supervisor of the Community Corrections Program). Mr. Robinson, a former County shift supervisor at the recycling facility, recalls looking the other way while inmates ate food that came down the conveyor belt. ECF 175-6 at 138-39. Food motivated the inmates, and DPW rewarded the inmates with pizza or sub lunches when they met their recycle bale quotas. ECF 175-41 at 5 (email from DOC supervisor Ms. Parish noting that DPW Operations Manager Mr. Bruce “will order food just to help motivate the workers, especially since it is cold out.”); see also ECF 175-1 at 96-97.

Ultimately, Plaintiffs received $20 per day for their labor, along with some opportunities for bonuses and industrial credits to reduce their remaining time served. ECF 169-10 at 9; ECF 169-23 at5 (Deposition of Eric Brooks, DOC manager). The MRF work detail was the highest paying assignment, given the inmates' general disinterest in working at the facility and the County's interest in using inmate labor to staff the sorting positions. ECF 175-3 at 45 (Baltimore County Administrative Officer noting, “Fewer still were interested in working at the recycling facility so the stipend was higher at the recycling facility,” id. at 43).

In January 2021, Plaintiff Scott, on behalf of himself and other Class Members, brought this case against the County for its alleged violation of federal and state employment laws. ECF 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that the County willfully violated...