Illinois EMT Files FLSA Lawsuit Seeking Compensation for On-Call Time

An emergency medical technician (EMT) employed by the Clark County Illinois Ambulance Department filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging the county’s on-call requirements for its EMTs violates both the FLSA and IL state law. The suit, which was filed by a lone EMT in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois late last month contains allegations that the county fails to compensate EMTs for the time spent on-call. More specifically, that the county requires EMTs to be on-call as a condition of employment and that the county unreasonably restricts the on-call EMT’s personal activities while on-call to such an extent that this time is compensable work time. It is worth noting that the lawsuit was filed by one EMT, however according to the complaint more than forty other “similarly situated” EMTs will likely join the lawsuit as part of a “collective action” in the coming weeks and months.   

Whether an employee must be compensated for the time spent “on-call” is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the specific situation. Generally speaking, the level and extent of employer control over the on-call employee’s personal activities while on-call will shape the answer. The more employer control exerted over the on-call employee’s personal activities, the more likely that on-call time must be compensated. Here, the plaintiff EMT makes the following claims [quoting from the complaint]:

• Plaintiff is employed as an emergency medical technician for Defendant, with such employment beginning July 10, 2016.
• During the Relevant Period, Plaintiff and the Class have been restricted while on call as a condition of employment in the following ways:
  • Being required to be on call and available to respond in case of an emergency.
  • Being required to maintain availability at all times of on-call work.
  • Being restricted from imbibing alcohol or other intoxicating substances while on call for work.
  • Being restricted in how far away she can travel to six (6) miles from the station, and she has been required to immediately respond to calls and to arrive on scene with no delay.
  • Being required to have an ambulance with her and under her control during on-call work, to maintain the vehicle, and to prepare the vehicle for immediate response to emergency calls.
  • Being required to conduct some work to maintain preparedness on Defendant’s premises.
• The restrictions on Plaintiff’s time during on-call work have been sufficient to prohibit Plaintiff from the effective use of on-call time for her own personal uses.
• The restrictions on Plaintiff’s time during on-call work have been sufficient to prohibit Plaintiff from engaging in alternative employment during such on-call work.
• Plaintiff and the Class have been paid $3 or less per hour for on-call time worked and substantially less than her standard rate of pay.
• Plaintiff and the Class have regularly worked in excess of forty (40) hours per week when factoring in both regular hours and hours classified as on-call hours, but Defendant has failed to adequately compensate Plaintiff and the Class for overtime hours worked.

In reviewing the list of allegations found in the complaint, one in particular tends to “jump out at the reader.” The fact that the on-call employee was required to “have an ambulance with her and under her control during on-call work” is a rather unique allegation that if proven will likely play a role in determining whether the on-call time must be compensated. The significance of this lone allegation remains to be seen. However, requiring an on-call employee keep and maintain an ambulance with him or her while on-call is certainly an unusual circumstance that in my opinion, tends to support a significant amount of employer control over that employee’s on-call time. We will have to wait and see if the court also finds this factor persuasive.

Here is a copy of the complaint. We will be keeping an eye on this one as it develops.