Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Labor

Employee Awarded Overtime Payment Under FLSA

Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

Summary of Decision

In case of Carmago v. Trammell, 318 F.Supp.2d 443 (E.D. Tex. 2004) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held that an employer was required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. 201-219, to pay overtime pay to an employee because the employee's activities did not fall under the FLSA's agricultural activity exemptions.

Background

Plaintiff Antonio Carmago was hired as a manual laborer along with 15 other individuals by defendant Trammell Crow Interest Company (Trammell). See id. at 445-46. Trammell operated a 10,000-acre farm upon which he primarily raised timber. See id. at 445. Camargo's primary duties were to maintain the lawn surrounding Trammell's personal residence, which was on the farm, cleaning the residence, washing vehicles and motorcycles used by farm guests, and other similar activities. See id. On rare occasions Carmargo performed duties related to operating the farm. See id. Trammell did not provide overtime compensation to Camargo for those instances in which Camargo worked more than 40 hours in a week. See id. Camargo brought an action under the FLSA to recover overtime compensation from Trammell. See id.

Arguments

Camargo argued that he was eligible for overtime pay under FLSA because he was not engaged in any agricultural activity that would prohibit the application of the the FLSA overtime provisions. See id. at 477. Trammell argued that Camargo's activities were exempted from FLSA because raising timber constituted an agricultural activity under the FLSA. See id.

Analysis and Holding

The court explained that § 203(f) of the FLSA "contains an exemption for agricultural activity . . . that exempts from the overtime pay requirement primary agriculture, which means farming in all its branches, and secondary agriculture, which means other practices performed either by a farmer or on a farm incidental to or in conjunction with the farming operations." Id. (citation omitted). The court stated that

[f]or forestry or lumbering operations to be covered by the agricultural exemption, they must be subordinate to farming operations. Small scale farming or other agricultural activities in conjunction with a large forestry or lumbering operation do not fit within that exemption. Defendant's forestry operations were not subordinate to its farming operations. If anything, its agricultural activities were subordinate to its forestry operation. Accordingly, the FLSA's agricultural exemption is therefore not applicable to the work Plaintiff performed for Defendant.

It added that

[o]nly a negligible, if any, portion of Plaintiff's work consisted of the activities specified in the FLSA's exemption for forestry or lumbering operations. Unlike the agricultural exemption, the forestry exemption to the FLSA does not include a secondary exemption for "any practices ... incident to or in conjunction with" the forestry operations. Therefore, Plaintiff's employment with Defendant is not subject to the FLSA's exemption for forestry or lumbering operations.

Id. (citations omitted).

The case was decided on February 23, 2004; this summary was posted Jan. 13, 2005.