Johnson v. North Memorial Health Care

Johnson v. North Memorial Health Care — Detailed Summary Case No. 23-cv-1780 (PJS/LIB) | U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota | Judge Susan Richard Nelson | March 9, 2026

Parties and Background Plaintiff Jason Johnson worked as an emergency medical technician (EMT) for defendant North Memorial Health Care — a nonprofit ambulance services provider — from April 2002 to May 2023. Johnson brought suit individually and on behalf of approximately 120 opt-in plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and on behalf of a certified Rule 23 class under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA), Minn. Stat. § 177.21 et seq., and the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act, Minn. Stat. § 181.101. The class, certified June 20, 2025, covers all persons who worked as paramedics or EMTs for North Memorial in Minnesota between June 13, 2020, and April 24, 2022, and were subject to North Memorial's on-call pay practices.

The On-Call Pay Dispute During the relevant period, North Memorial EMTs typically worked a 12-hour primary shift followed by a 12-hour on-call (off-premise) shift, or vice versa. Primary hours were paid at the EMT's regular hourly rate; on-call hours were paid at $4.00 per hour. On-call hours were excluded from overtime calculations. Time spent actually responding to calls during on-call shifts was treated as primary (higher-paid) time, with a guaranteed minimum of two hours' primary pay per completed call and one hour if a call was canceled before the EMT was en route.

North Memorial's on-call policies required EMTs to: (1) be in the ambulance and en route within eight minutes of being called; (2) refrain from consuming alcohol or mind-altering substances; and (3) be appropriately dressed. The extent to which these policies were enforced was disputed.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

A. Liability (On-Call Time as Compensable Work Time) The FLSA does not specify a standard for on-call time. Under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), courts examine all surrounding circumstances, focusing on whether employer-imposed conditions restrict employees from using on-call time for personal pursuits. See also Cross v. Arkansas Forestry Commission, 938 F.2d 912 (8th Cir. 1991).

The court found sharply conflicting evidence on both sides. Johnson presented evidence that the eight-minute response requirement forced many EMTs to stay at the station, prevented them from living beyond eight minutes from their base, and interfered with daily activities including errands, exercise, childcare, cooking, and recreation. EMTs also testified about the burden of continuously monitoring radios and text messages. On average, EMTs spent slightly under one-third of on-call time actually responding to calls.

North Memorial countered that it did not strictly monitor response times, that EMTs could wear casual clothes rather than uniforms, that EMTs could swap or give away shifts, and that many EMTs were able to engage in a wide variety of personal activities during on-call time. North Memorial also emphasized that its bases were in small towns, giving EMTs access to most local amenities.

The court declined to grant summary judgment for either side, finding the evidence too conflicting for resolution without a jury. It reviewed and distinguished several prior cases — Cross, Renfro v. City of Emporia, Reimer v. Champion Healthcare Corp., Brekke v. City of Blackduck, Sletten v. First Care Medical Services, Dickhaut v. Madison County, and Burnison v. Memorial Hospital, Inc. — concluding that each involved a different factual mix and that no clear precedent dictated judgment for either party. Both motions were DENIED on the liability issue.

B. Liquidated Damages — Good-Faith Defense (29 U.S.C. § 260) Under the FLSA, a prevailing employee is ordinarily entitled to recover double damages (unpaid wages plus an equal amount as 'liquidated damages'). An employer can defeat this by proving, under 29 U.S.C. § 260, that it acted in subjective good faith and had objectively reasonable grounds to believe it was complying with the law. The burden is on the employer and is described in Eighth Circuit case law as a 'difficult' one. See Chao v. Barbeque Ventures, LLC, 547 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2008).

The court found North Memorial's evidence of good faith legally insufficient. North Memorial offered only generic assertions that it consulted legal counsel, reviewed wage and hour laws and treatises, attended seminars, and communicated with regulators — without identifying any specific advice received, who at the company relied on it, or any particular occasion on which anyone actually analyzed the on-call issue. Its payroll audits were described only in vague terms by a witness who could not describe their content, documentation, or results. The court compared this to the legally insufficient evidence in Jarrett v. ERC Properties, Inc., 211 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2000), and Walsh v. Alpha & Omega USA, Inc., 553 F. Supp. 3d 659 (D. Minn. 2021), contrasting it with the specific, concrete evidence of compliance steps found sufficient in Hultgren v. County of Lancaster, Nebraska, 913 F.2d 498 (8th Cir. 1990).

Johnson's motion was GRANTED on this issue. North Memorial's good-faith defense fails as a matter of law, meaning that if the EMTs prevail at trial, double damages under the FLSA will be available.

C. Willfulness and the Statute of Limitations (29 U.S.C. § 255(a)) The standard FLSA statute of limitations is two years. If an employer's violation was 'willful' — meaning the employer knew or recklessly disregarded whether its conduct violated the law — the limitations period extends to three years. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving willfulness. McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (1988). Mere negligence is not enough. Simpson v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 441 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2006).

Johnson argued that North Memorial's failure to investigate its obligations and its subsequent remediation (paying minimum wage for on-call hours and including them in overtime calculations after an EMT filed a Department of Labor complaint) demonstrated willfulness. The court rejected this, finding that such evidence, at most, shows negligence. Unlike in Simpson and Jarrett — where there was affirmative evidence that the employer knew it was violating the law — here the existing case law does not clearly require compensation for on-call time, and North Memorial has a meritorious legal argument on the merits. No positive evidence showed that North Memorial knew or recklessly disregarded its legal obligations.

North Memorial's motion was GRANTED on willfulness. The applicable statute of limitations is two years, not three.

Rulings Summary - Johnson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 152]: GRANTED as to North Memorial's good-faith defense to liquidated damages under 29 U.S.C. § 260; DENIED in all other respects. - North Memorial's Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 157]: GRANTED as to willfulness (two-year statute of limitations applies); DENIED in all other respects. - The core liability question — whether on-call time is compensable work time — remains for trial.