Jerry D. Plaintiff has filed a Response Doc. For the following reasons, defendant's motion shall be granted. The following facts concerning plaintiff's claims are either uncontroverted or, if controverted, are construed in a light most favorable to plaintiff. Defendant, a Kansas nonprofit corporation, operates "Hunter House," a residential group home for the developmentally disabled in Osage City, Kansas. Plaintiff was employed by defendant from until February 19, As Hunter House's manager, plaintiff was required to work a rather unorthodox schedule.
During the time relevant to this action, plaintiff was on-duty for approximately eight hours per day Monday through Friday, and plaintiff received compensation for a standard forty-hour work week. In addition to his regular hours, however, plaintiff was required to be physically present at the facility from approximately p. Monday through Thursday. According to defendant, during this "sleep time," plaintiff was not to perform his routine duties. It is uncontroverted, however, that while not technically "working," plaintiff was not free to leave Hunter House.
This action is solely concerned with whether plaintiff was legally compensated for this time. Plaintiff seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and an award of costs and attorney's fees.
Defendant seeks summary judgment claiming: 1 the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction due to defendant's immunity from suit pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution; and 2 defendant correctly deducted plaintiff's sleep hours. Summary judgment [1] is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and that it is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The rule provides that "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact. Liberty Lobby, Inc. The substantive law identifies which facts are material. A dispute over a material fact is genuine when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant. The movant has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
