DINGES v. SACRED HEART ST. MARY'S HOSPITALS, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: EMTs on call with a 7-minute response time sued for overtime pay for all on-call hours. The court held the time was not compensable work under the FLSA because the employees could effectively use the time for personal pursuits at home and had voluntarily agreed to the arrangement.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that even a very short on-call response time is not dispositive in determining compensability under the FLSA. The analysis depends on the totality of circumstances, including the employee’s ability to engage in personal activities and the voluntary nature of the work agreement.
DINGES v. SACRED HEART ST. MARY'S HOSPITALS, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs Garrett Dinges and Christine Foster were Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) for a hospital in rural Tomahawk, Wisconsin. They voluntarily sought positions on the “first-out” on-call crew. This status required them to arrive at the hospital within seven minutes of being paged during their on-call shifts, which typically lasted 14 to 16 hours overnight. The entire city of Tomahawk was within the 7-minute response radius, allowing the plaintiffs to remain at home while on call. They were paid $2.25 per hour for on-call time, plus time-and-a-half for actual emergency work, with a minimum of two hours’ work credited for each call. The probability of receiving at least one call during an on-call period was less than 50%. While on call, the EMTs could sleep, eat, watch television, care for their families, and attend local events. They sued the hospital, arguing that all on-call hours should be considered compensable “work” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to the restrictive 7-minute response time.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is time spent on call by emergency medical technicians, subject to a seven-minute response requirement, compensable ‘work’ under the Fair Labor Standards Act when they can remain at home and effectively use the time for personal pursuits?
No. The on-call time was not compensable work under the FLSA. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi u
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Is time spent on call by emergency medical technicians, subject to a seven-minute response requirement, compensable ‘work’ under the Fair Labor Standards Act when they can remain at home and effectively use the time for personal pursuits?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that in FLSA on-call cases, courts will conduct a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliq
Legal Rule
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), whether on-call time is compensable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
Legal Analysis
The court applied the Supreme Court's distinction between being "engaged to wait" Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- On-call time for rural EMTs with a 7-minute response time is