Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Dinkel v. Medstar Health Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

April 16, 2015, Decided

Civil Action No. 11-998 (CKK)



Plaintiffs are employees of Washington Hospital Center who bring this collective action against Defendants MedStar Health, Inc. ("MedStar") and Washington Hospital Center, claiming that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act ("DC-MWA") by failing to compensate them for "meal break" and "uniform maintenance" work. Before the Court are Defendants' [131] Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiffs' Uniform Maintenance Claim and Defendants' [116] Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Witnesses.1 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' uniform [**2]  maintenance activities are not compensable in light of the Supreme Court's explication of the relevant standard in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513, 190 L. Ed. 2d 410 (2014). Defendants also argue that the uniform maintenance activities are de minimis as a matter of law. Upon consideration of the pleadings,2 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Defendants' [131] Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that the time spent by the collective members on uniform maintenance is not compensable under the FLSA because the uniform maintenance activities are not integral and indispensable to the employees' principal activities and because they are not principal activities themselves. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to Plaintiffs' FLSA claim. However, the Court DENIES the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE with respect to the DC-MWA claim for reasons stated below. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' FLSA claim does not succeed even if the expert witness testimony they submitted were admissible, the Court need not resolve Defendants' [116] Motion to Exclude Testimony at this time. The Court HOLDS that motion IN ABEYANCE  [*39]  pending further proceedings with [**3]  respect to Plaintiffs' DC-MWA claim.


Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

99 F. Supp. 3d 37 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49819 **; 165 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P36,335

PEGGY DINKEL, VALARIE GADSON, AND DEIDRE BECKFORD, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEDSTAR HEALTH INC. and WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER, Defendants

Prior History: Dinkel v. Medstar Health, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 28, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103136 (D.D.C., July 25, 2012)


principal activity, maintenance activities, indispensable, summary judgment, integral, employees, renew a motion, battery-plant, showering, clothes, genuine, summary judgment motion, briefing, spent, material fact, Fair Labor Standards Act, qualify, plant

Civil Procedure, Judgments, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Burdens of Proof, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Supporting Materials, Evidentiary Considerations, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Business & Corporate Compliance, Wage & Hour Laws, Statutory Application, Portal-to-Portal Act