Powell v. Northwestern Resources Co.

Fifth Circuit

Powell v. Northwestern Resources Co.

104 F. App'x 964

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 15, 2004

Docket03-51244

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 F. App'x 964 (Powell v. Northwestern Resources Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Powell v. Northwestern Resources Co., 104 F. App'x 964 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Robert L. Powell, Robert C. Childs, Willis E. Pickett, Tracy Rowell, and Ronald *965 Foley (collectively, the Plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for Northwestern Resources Co. (NRC) relating to the Plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim for overtime compensation for certain pre-shift and post-shift activities. ** The Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to correct a minor error in their reply brief is GRANTED.

The Plaintiffs assert that, among other things, the tasks of signing in at NRC’s “ready room,” receiving daily work assignments, conducting pre- and post-shift inspections of the company’s transport vehicles, and travel time to and from their respective job sites, constituted integral components of their principal work activities from which NRC benefited and for which the Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid.

We have reviewed the record and hold that the pre- and post-shift activities cited by the Plaintiffs were neither performed in the ordinary course of business nor for the benefit of NRC. See Vega v. Gaspar, 36 F.3d 417, 424-25 (5th Cir.1994). Similarly, as determined by the district court, the Plaintiffs offer insufficient summary judgment proof of a contract or the existence of a custom or practice at NRC that compensated for travel time to a designated excavation site. See 29 U.S.C. § 254(b). Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs fail to identify specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *965 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

On stipulation of the parties, the Plaintiffs’ remaining claim regarding nonpayment of a night-shift premium was withdrawn and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Robert L. Powell, Robert C. Childs, Willis E. Pickett, Tracy Rowell, and Ronald *965 Foley (collectively, the Plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment for Northwestern Resources Co. (NRC) relating to the Plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim for overtime compensation for certain pre-shift and post-shift activities. ** The Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to correct a minor error in their reply brief is GRANTED.

The Plaintiffs assert that, among other things, the tasks of signing in at NRC’s “ready room,” receiving daily work assignments, conducting pre- and post-shift inspections of the company’s transport vehicles, and travel time to and from their respective job sites, constituted integral components of their principal work activities from which NRC benefited and for which the Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid.

We have reviewed the record and hold that the pre- and post-shift activities cited by the Plaintiffs were neither performed in the ordinary course of business nor for the benefit of NRC. See Vega v. Gaspar, 36 F.3d 417, 424-25 (5th Cir.1994). Similarly, as determined by the district court, the Plaintiffs offer insufficient summary judgment proof of a contract or the existence of a custom or practice at NRC that compensated for travel time to a designated excavation site. See 29 U.S.C. § 254(b). Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs fail to identify specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue for trial, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *965 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

On stipulation of the parties, the Plaintiffs’ remaining claim regarding nonpayment of a night-shift premium was withdrawn and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. App'x 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-northwestern-resources-co-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack