AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies


Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

Pay Disputes - In General

     Current and former correctional officers who worked at various California facilities claimed that they were improperly denied pay for time they were under their employer’s control before and after their shifts, such as when traveling to and from their posts, attending briefings, checking out required equipment, and being searched at security checkpoints. They asserted state law claims for failure to pay contractual overtime, failure to pay the California minimum wage, failure to keep accurate records of hours worked, and failure to pay overtime in breach of common law contractual obligations. The trial court certified classes, with two subclasses, distinguishing between employees represented by unions and those not represented, and then held that the plaintiffs’ entitlement to overtime pay was controlled by federal, rather than California, law, as well as entering judgment for the defendants. An intermediate state appeals court reversed as to the subclass of unrepresented supervisory employees and affirmed as to the subclass of union represented employees. It ruled that the officers who were employed by state correctional facilities and represented by a union could not recover unpaid minimum wages under state law because a memorandum of understanding, which specified that federal law would apply to preclude compensation for time spent under the employer's control before and after work shifts, had received legislative approval, superseding the state minimum wage law. Unrepresented employees were entitled to pay for all hours worked under the applicable state standard and could pursue breach of contract claims based on the failure to pay overtime. Stoetzl v. State of California, #A142832, 2017 Cal. App. Lexis 765.

     A management level employee of a public school system discovered that she was being paid less for the same work than her male counterparts. A federal appeals court rejected her equal pay claims under the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. 206(d); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5; and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code 12940. The county admitted that it paid her less than comparable male employees, but raised an affirmative defense under the Equal Pay Act that the difference was based on the prior salaries of the employees involved. Prior salary can be a factor other than sex, so long as the employer shows that prior salary accomplishes some business policy and that the employer uses prior salary reasonably in light of its stated purpose as well as its other practices. The appeals court vacated the district court's denial of the county's motion for summary judgment, providing instructions for the trial court to evaluate the business reasons offered by the county and determine whether it used prior salary reasonably in light of its stated purposes as well as its other practices. Rizo v. Yovino, #16-15372, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 7427 (9th Cir.).
     A retired employee of a California state agency sued on behalf of similarly situated resigned and retired employees, claiming that they were not paid their final wages within a statutory deadline. The statute requires prompt payment to employees who are discharged or who resign. The plaintiff, who had retired from her job, stated a claim to statutory penalties for late payment of final wages as the statute applies to those who "quit to retire." McLean v. State, #S221554, 1 Cal. 5th 615, 2016 Cal. Lexis 6787, 167 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P61734.
     While working for the state Department of Corrections, an officer sustained a knee injury and received workers' compensation benefits, along with assault pay. He later was terminated as medically unfit for duty, and the employer stopped paying assault pay. He sued, seeking a judicial declaration that he was entitled to keep receiving assault pay for as long as he kept receiving workers' compensation. The highest court in Massachusetts ruled that a state employee's right to assault pay ends when his or her employment ends. Assault pay was intended to be a substitute for the use of accrued sick leave. Marchand v. Dep’t of Corr., #SJC-11949, 475 Mass. 1006, 2016 Mass. Lexis 597.
     A number of retired D.C. Metropolitan police officers were later rehired by the D. C. Protective Services Division, an agency charged with protecting D.C. owned property and government buildings. They received salaries for their new jobs and pension benefits from their former jobs. A provision of the D.C. statutes, however, aimed at preventing so-called "double dipping," required that their current salaries be reduced by the amount of their pensions. A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that the salary reductions did not violate the Public Salary Tax Act of 939, 4 U.S.C. 111(a), a statute that only permitted states or D.C. to "tax" compensation paid to federal employees if that tax did not discriminate against federal employees. The court ruled that the salary reduction provision was not a "tax" but instead reduced D.C.'s total expenditure on salaries. The amount of the reduction was not collected through normal taxation mechanisms and did not raise revenue, but only lower expenditures. Cannon v. Dist. of Columbia, #14-7014, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6320 (D.C. Cir.).
     Diplomatic Security Special Agent employed by the U.S. State Department volunteered to serve one year in Iraq during wartime, arriving there in February of 2004. Because their permanent duty station was then still listed as Washington, D.C., they received, in addition to their base pay, additional "locality pay" designed to equalize the pay of federal employees with non-federal employees' pay in the same area. After their permanent duty station was changed to Baghdad, they no longer received the locality pay, but they did receive significant overtime pay. After they returned to the U.S. in 2005, they were informed that new Office of Personnel Management regulations placed an annual premium pay cap on their compensation of $128,200, and that their pay to date either had already or would soon be over the cap amount, so that the government would seek to collect ay overpayments. They received letters later requesting repayments of amounts ranging from $435.94 to $10,514.98. A federal appeals court rejected an argument that the State Department acted arbitrarily in declining to agree to a discretionary waiver of the employees' obligations to repay the overpayments and found that the Department "permissibly construed" the law at issue, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5584. Lubow v. Dep't of State, #13-5057, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 6302 (D.C. Cir.).
     Four separate lawsuits were brought against a city by current and retired police officers and firefighters. They claimed that the city's failure to pay them certain wages and benefits violated state and federal law, including breach of contract. A federal appeals court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals by the city of the denial of its motions to dismiss on the basis of governmental immunity in the lawsuits. The appeals court further found that the city was not entitled to the dismissal of the lawsuits since the plaintiff had sufficiently valid contracts with the city. The city itself had conceded that such claims prevented a municipality from being awarded dismissal on the basis of governmental immunity. Davis v. City of Greensboro, #13-1820, 770 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2014).
     A retired California state employee could proceed with a class action claim that the state did not comply with a prompt payment of due wages statute. The word "quits" in the statute including employees quitting to retire. The statute did not require her to name the specific agency she had worked for as a defendant, and she properly named the State of California as the defendant because she was a civil service employee. McLean v. State of California, #C074515, 228 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 176 Cal. Rptr. 3d 734, 2014 Cal. App. Lexis 755.
     A county sheriff's office paid varying amounts to a group of sergeants within an established pay range. A grievance by the sergeants challenged the discrepancy, and the department's civil service board upheld the grievance and ordered that the sheriff equalize the pay of all the sergeants. The Tennessee Supreme Court disagreed, stating that in the absence of any proof that the sheriff had violated the civil service manual or a provision of state law, the board did not have the power to order the equalization of salaries. The civil service manual explicitly gave the sheriff the authority to make individual determinations of pay, and there was no proof that the sheriff violated any state law, so the board exceeded its authority. Hammond v. Harvey, #E2011-01700-SC-R11-CV,2013 Tenn. Lexis 640.
     Police unions challenged a wage freeze imposed on county employees in 2011 by an interim finance authority. They argued that the freeze violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution and that the finance authority powers to impose a freeze had expired under a state statute. The trial court granted the unions summary judgment on the basis of their state law claim without reaching the constitutional issue. The federal appeals court found that the trial court had erred in doing so, since doing it required it to interpret, for the first time, an important state legislative scheme enacted to prevent the fiscal fail;ure of the county. The ruling was therefore vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Carver v. Nassau County Interim Finance, #13-801 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 19366 (2nd Cir.).
     A federal appeals court upheld in general the District of Columbia's laws against "double dipping" by employees who retired from a job with the District and then were rehired in another job, attempting to draw both a full pension and a full salary. The plaintiffs were retired employees of the Metropolitan Police Department who drew a pension and were subsequently hired by another District agency. The court found that the claims that the salary offset violated the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause were meritless. It did, however, find that in slashing three of the plaintiffs' salaries, allegedly below the federal minimum wage, the District may have overstepped the boundaries of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), so further proceedings were needed.  Cannon v. District of Columbia, #12-7064, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 11130 (D.C. Cir.).
     A firefighters union was entitled to a judgment in its favor when it presented evidence to support its interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement that the city was required to give step pay increases to all eligible firefighters. The City failed to present any real evidence to the contrary. The lawsuit was filed when the city refused to give pay increases to five firefighters who qualified for a step increase in pay. Sheridan Fire Fighters Local No. 276 v. City of Sheridan, #S-12-0108, 2013 WY 36, 2013 Wyo. Lexis 40.
     Just before a Naval Criminal Investigative Service employee was to be transferred from California to Washington, D.C., she submitted a questionnaire to serve on a California state grand jury, and was chosen to serve for a year. The Navy allowed her to serve and paid her salary under a federal statute, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 6322(a). It instructed her, however, not to reapply for another term on the grand jury. She did, however, and was appointed to serve for a second one-year term. The Navy then placed her on AWOL status and withheld her pay, subsequently terminating her. A federal appeals court held that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) erred in rejecting her claims for back pay on the basis that she had not been "summoned" for grand jury duty for the second year but sought it voluntarily. The CFC did not, however, have jurisdiction to hear her wrongful termination claim. Hall v. U.S., #2011-5119, 677 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
     Because the state of Illinois faced a major fiscal crisis, a union representing 40,000 state employees agreed to postpone a portion of a wage hike promised in a negotiated contract. Subsequently, the state legislators refused to appropriate sufficient funds to pay the deferred wage increases to 75% of the employees. The union's lawsuit against state officials asserting violations of the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. State officials could not be compelled by such a federal lawsuit to pay funds from the state treasury. The court also found that there was no Contract Clause violation in the outcome, which was the result of non-appropriation of funds and a mere breach of contract, insufficient to establish a constitutional claim. Any Equal Protection argument would be defeated by the fact that imposing cost savings measures rationally served a legitimate governmental interest in light of the fiscal crisis. Council 31 of AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Quinn, #11–3111, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9897 (7th Cir.).
     While the adoption by California of a three-day-per-month furlough program for state employees reduced the pay of members of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, this was within the authority of the state legislature in revising the state budget, and did not violate state labor or government codes or the state's minimum wage law. A trial court award of back pay for the officers was therefore reversed. Brown v. Superior Court, #A127292, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 1259 (1st Dist.).
     Unionized city employees who accepted early retirement under an incentive program while the city was negotiating with their unions for new contracts were not entitled to retroactive pay raises provided for city employees in the new contracts. The early retirement incentive program did not contain any provisions entitling them to such back pay, and the new contracts expressly excluded them from receiving such retroactive payments. This did not violate their due process rights. Marcatante v. City of Chicago, #10-2114, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 17683 (7th Cir.).
     City employees were not entitled a four-stage wage increase because the N.Y. legislature imposed a three-year salary freeze. Matter of Meegan v. Brown, #37, 2011 NY Slip Op 2436, 2011 N.Y. Lexis 470.
     When counsel for a party subpoenas a California peace officer, both the litigant and counsel are the party at whose request the subpoena is issued and both are liable for the reimbursement of the officer's compensation. Maddox v. City of Costa Mesa, #G043297, 2011 Cal. App. Lexis 339 (4th Dist.).
     President signs legislation to prohibit statutory pay adjustments for non-military Federal civilian employees for a 2-year period. Executive Order, Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay.
     New York Public Employment Relations Board judge dismisses an appeal relating to payments due a public employee. The charging party failed to appear at a status conference or provide reasons excusing his absence. Carroll and AFSCME L-870 and Patchogue-Medford, PERB #U-29075, 2009 NYPER Lexis 120.
    Federal court overturns an employer-imposed economic measure that reduced the work hours of all covered employees by 80 in FY-2009, reducing the annual salaries of those employees by 3.85%. “The Framers of the Constitution drafted the Contract Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, §10, cl. 1.) based on the concern that state governments might enact legislation to alter, relax or unilaterally modify contractual obligations.” FOP v. Prince George’s Co., #AW-08-2455, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72810 (D.Md.).
     After a three-year wage freeze had ended, police officers, firefighters and other employee were entitled to more than a one-year advancement on their pay scales. They continued to accrue service credit and climbed the ladder of salary and career increments set forth in the bargaining agreements, but a partial lifting of the wage freeze with respect to one union should not have applied to all. Meegan v. Brown; Foley v. Brown, #322CA-08-00492, 2009 NY Slip Op 4805, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 4721 (4th Dept.).
     Bankruptcy court rules that a city has the authority to void its existing union contracts in its effort to reorganize. Public workers lack the protections of union workers for private companies. In re City of Vallejo, Calif., #08-26813, Memorandum decision (PACER Doc. 473); Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (E.D. Cal. 2009).
     Police chief lacked standing to challenge a new ordinance that effectively reduced his pay. The suit did not advance a public aim or seek to enforce a public right. State ex rel. Simeone v. City of Niles, #2008-T-0059, 2008-Ohio-7000, 2008 Ohio App. Lexis 5856 (11th Dist.).
     Union members win a ruling to compel DHS and FPS to obey an order issued by an administrative law judge to pay the prevailing wages to employees performing contractual services for the Federal Protective Service. United Govt. Security Officers L-52 v. Chertoff, #07-173, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 95476 (D.D.C.).
     Arbitrator upholds a pay grade grievance where a corporal was temporarily placed in sergeant's position without receiving the pay differential. The contract was silent on temporary assignments to acting ranks. Franklin Co. Sheriff's Office and FOP L-9, FMCS Case #070724/58773-8, 125 LA (BNA) 332, (Weatherspoon, 2008).
     Arbitrator finds that favoritism resulted in others receiving merit pay increases, and orders a retroactive pay raise for the grievant. City of Vandalia and Ohio PBA, 125 LA (BNA) 62 (Paolucci, 2008).
     Arbitrator holds that management violated the bargaining agreement by denying pay shift differential to police officers that volunteered to work on the swing or night shifts; the term "regular rate of pay" under the Fair Labor Standards Act includes shift incentives and differentials. City of Tacoma and Tacoma Police Union L-6, 124 LA (BNA) 642 (Landau, 2007).
     In a pay dispute where the employer raised the defense of prior litigation, a federal court rejects the theory that each paycheck that a plaintiff receives constitutes a new discriminatory act; the continuing effects of past discriminatory actions do not resuscitate time-barred claims. Groesch v. City of Springfield, #04-3162, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50009 (C.D. Ill.).
     In a case where the county claimed that the sheriff falsely certified department payrolls, resulting in key employees receiving unauthorized premium pay adjustments, the sheriff was immune from liability for negligent misrepresentations, because his erroneous decision to increase commanders pay involved policymaking. County of Kern v. Sparks, #F050440, 2007 Cal. App. Lexis 467 (5th Dist.).
     A sheriff's dept. that erroneously overpaid an employee was entitled to a summary judgment to recover the overpayments. Gibson v. Ada County, #29694, 2006 Ida. Lexis 12 (2006). {N/R}
     Arbitrator rules that although the CBA specifically allowed four hours minimum pay for off-duty court appearances, only actual hours need be paid for other callback duty, such as a flood response. Columbiana County Sheriff and FOP, 121 LA (BNA) 902, FMCS Case #05/01634 (D'Eletto, 2005). {N/R}      Arbitrator concludes, in a grievance related to longevity pay, that "years of service" means total service, and not uninterrupted, continuous service. City of Chehalis and Teamsters L-252, Wash. PERC Case #18589-A-04-1401 121 LA (BNA) 38 (Schwendiman, 2005). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that a firefighter that was reinstated after his termination was overturned was entitled to payment for 282 hours overtime he likely would have worked, but for the disciplinary action. City of Barberton and IAFF L-329, 120 LA (BNA) 1367, FMCS #040209/52328 (Goggin, 2004). {N/R}
     Arbitrator finds that Treasury Dept. underpaid its 2003 performance awards program by as much as $6.7 million, affecting as many as 40,000 IRS employees. The underfunding was due to the fact that management had used salary projections rather than actual compensation amounts. National Treasury Employees Union and I.R.S., 42 (2086) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1155 (Ross, 2004). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that a city violated the bargaining agreement when it refused to pay a police officer for 12 partial days of jury duty, even though the city changed the officer's schedule so that the jury appearances would not conflict with his scheduled duty. City of Urichsville, Ohio and Fraternal Order of Police, 119 LA (BNA) 1723 (Harlan, 2004). [2004 FP Dec]
     Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission holds that it was an Unfair Labor Practice to change the payroll period from weekly to biweekly, without bargaining with the union. Worcester County Sheriff's Office and Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, #SUP-4531 (Mass. LRC 2004). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects a pay discrimination suit filed by 18 former Chicago Police crime lab scientists who were absorbed into the Illinois State Police Forensic Services Division. The plaintiffs were unable to prove the transfer process failed to account for their seniority, or that incumbent ISP scientists were paid more than them because they were white; 27 of 51 the former CPD scientists were minorities. Boyd v. Illinois State Police, #02-2880, 384 F.3d 888, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 20576, 94 FEP Cases (BNA) 839 (7th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     Arbitrator refuses to enforce a side agreement to pay a police officer more than the wages indicated in the bargaining agreement. "The rights and remedies of a bargaining unit member with respect to wages derive solely from the terms of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the employer and the representative union. An employer cannot enter into separate, private agreements with individual members of the bargaining unit where the effect of such agreements would be to contradict the terms of the collective bargaining agreement." Borough of Brentwood and Teamsters L-205, Pa. Bur. of Mediation #4195, 119 LA (BNA) 1020 (Dissen, 2003). {N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that longevity pay is calculated on the basis of each entire year worked, and does not include a prorated credit for a partial year. Twp. of Austintown and FOP L- 126,117 LA (BNA) 900, AAA Case No. 53-390-00365-0 (Ruben, 2002). {N/R}
     Arbitrator finds that a city did not violate the bargaining contract when it refused to give officers extra pay for transporting a prisoner to court during times when the officers are required to appear at court hearings. City of Amherst and Ohio P.B.A., 117 LA (BNA) 572 (Adamson, 2002). {N/R}
     Arbitrator declines to impose wage increases based on years of service, where there is no history of seniority differentials. Mason City and IBOT L-828, 117 LA (BNA) 472 (Feldman, 2002). [2002 FP Dec]
     212,000 current and former "special salary rate" federal employees, who worked between 1982 and 1988, will share more than $173 million in back pay under a class action settlement. Most awards will be in the $1,000 to $3,000 range, but some workers may recover as much as $30,000. NTEU v. King, #96-1263, 132 F.3d 736, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 17 (Fed. Cir. 1998); NTEU v. Horner, #87-1506, 869 F.2d 571 (Fed. Cir. 1989). [N/R]
     Arbitrator upholds a grievance that a city improperly hired a new firefighter at 10% more than the contract minimum wage. Although allowed under an ordinance, the bargaining history between the city and firefighters' union prevented this action. Boca Raton (City of) and I.A.F.F. Local 1560, FMCS #05454-3, 116 LA (BNA) 328 (Abrams, 2001). [2002 FP Feb]
     Arbitrator holds that detectives were not entitled to a FTO pay supplement if they were accompanied by newly appointed evidence technicians that they were not required to evaluate -- even though patrol FTOs were additionally compensated. San Antonio (City of) and San Antonio POA, AAA Case #70-390-00121-98, 115 LA (BNA) 513 (Moore, 2001). [2001 FP 72-3]
     Miscellaneous one-time events, such as a delayed check or a failure to receive an overtime check, do not amount to legally cognizable employment injury. Thomas v. Dept. of Corrections, 77 Cal.App.4th 507, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 11, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 770, 00 C.D.O.S. 267 (Cal.App. 2000). {N/R}
     City did not violate an officers' equal protection rights with a new pay structure that calculated his work week at 42.5 hours, even though the hourly rate of other same-grade city employees were calculated at a 40-hour work week. Police officers are often required to work during their lunch breaks, and other city employees are not. Arnold v. City of Columbia, Mo., 197 F.3d 1217, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 31550, 5 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1284 (8th Cir.). (N/R}
     Arbitrator holds that public employer was not required to pay for time spent on recertification training, absent a provision in the bargaining agreement. Pickaway Co. Sheriff and FOP Ohio, FMCS Case #99/00168, 112 LA (BNA) 742 (Bell, 1999). [1999 FP 158]
     City was not obligated to pay new police officers the higher amount listed in a recruiting brochure; claimants knew the correct salary before they accepted their appointments. Williams v. City of Midland, 932 S.W.2d 679 (Tex.App. 1996). [1997 FP 121]
     Arbitrator holds that patrol officers who function as acting sergeants were entitled to extra pay. Saddle River (Bor. of) and PBA L-348, NJPERC #AR-95-4474, 106 LA (BNA) 684 (DiLauro, 1996). [1996 FP 171]
     Arbitrator declines to order city to pay other patrolmen salary increases because one member of the bargaining unit was receiving a higher rate than he was eligible for. Rye Brook (Vil. of) and P.B.A., 104 LA (BNA) 822 (Marx, 1995). [1995 FP 170-1]
     City was obligated to pay officers for private, off-duty work details, even though contractor failed to pay the city for their work. The arbitrator noted the duty involved traffic control at a construction site, which benefited the town. Winthrop and IBPO L-397, LAIG #5006 (Higgins, 1994); 3 (9) Pub.Sfty.Lab. News (LRIS) 9. {N/R}
     Employer could not deduct its unspecified losses from employee earnings. Cal. Labor Code Sec. 221 prohibits deductions for cash shortages, breakage, loss of equipment, sales returns where the salesperson is not known, and other business losses. Hudgins v. Neiman Marcus, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 (App. 1995). {N/R}
     Representations to an employee that a former payment policy would be used are not enforceable. The doctrine of equitable estoppel does not generally apply to acts of public agents. Carson v. City of Lafollette, 878 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn.App. 1994), citing State ex rel. Dossett v. Obion Co., 221 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1949). [1995 FP 125]
     Refusal to pay corrections officers "hazardous duty pay" at a minimum security facility did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. McDermott v. Coughlin, 610 N.Y.S.2d 329 (A.D. 1994). {N/R}
     Alabama rules that a fire dept. was not obligated to pay the rate advertised in a job announcement. Paseur v. Huntsville, 1994 Ala. Lexis 340, 9 IER Cases (BNA) 1174 (Ala. 1994). [1994 FP 171-2]
     Federal appeals court upholds police and teacher pay reductions in violation of union contracts, reversing a trial court ruling which found the reductions violated the "Contracts Clause" of the Federal Constitution. Baltimore City F.O.P. v. Mayor, 801 F.Supp. 1506 (D.Md. 1992); reversed, 6 F.3d 1012 (4th Cir. 1993). [1994 FP 58-9]
     Appellate court upholds arbitrator's use of CPI for future wage increases. Moses Lake (City of) v. I.A.F.F. Local 2052, 847 P.2d 16 (Wash.App. 1993). [1993 FP 155]
     An involuntarily terminated worker is entitled to receive all wages due him. A state law requiring prompt payment of wages to employees does not exclude those who are fired from their jobs. Duke v. Norman Eqpmt., 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21152, 30 WH Cases (BNA) 1528 (N.D. Ind.). {N/R}
     City could not rotate sergeants to acting lieutenant to avoid paying differential salary to a sergeant who would have been assigned to the acting rank on a long-term basis. City of Boston v. Boston Police Super. Ofcrs. Fed., 29 Mass. App. 907, 556 N.E.2d 1053 (1990).
     Sergeant who was assigned to replace a lieutenant as platoon commander was not entitled to higher pay. Chaisson v. Dept. of Police, 556 So.2d 73 (La. App. 1990).
     Personnel code which required a survey of comparable pay for similar positions in public and private employment did not require inclusion of federal pay positions. Anderson v. State Dept. of Personnel, 756 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1988).
     Although a comparable worth study done by the City was sound, the law does not release the employer from an obligation to bargain in good faith nor to totally ignore historical comparisons, both external and internal. Arbitrators must consider pay equity and pay compression as a determinant for making an award. Blaine (City of), MN and Minn. Teamsters L-320, Case No. 87 PN 707, 90 LA (BNA) 549 (Perretti, 2/5/1988). {N/R}
     Firefighter lacked standing to challenge pay raise given other firefighters who were EMT-A qualified. Bowers v. Columbus Munic. Civil Serv. Cmsn., 34 Ohio App. 280, 518 N.E.2d 584 (1986).
     Police technician entitled to supervisory pay when those duties are regularly performed, along with car allowance given supervisors. Mokwa v. City of Houston, 741 S.W.2d 142 (Tex.App. 1987).
     Predominantly female police dispatchers not entitled to same pay as predominantly male fire dispatchers. Peters v. City of Shreveport, 818 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir. 1987).
     State police could pay officers in northern part of state 20 percent more than officers in rest of state. Eldridge v. Bouchard, 645 F.Supp. 749 (W.D. Va. 1986).
     Wardens, jailers and radio dispatchers do “police work” for minimum pay considerations. Houston County Commission v. Hart, 477 So.2d 321 (Ala. 1985).
     Firefighters allowed to sue city for wage reductions because city failed to exclude them from new social security law. Williams v. City of Bastrop, 464 So.2d 1389; subsequent opinion on merits, 475 So.2d 118 (La. App. 1985).
     Elected officials have no right to a “fair” or “reasonable” salary, but it cannot be reduced when they are in office. Trinisewski v. Hudock, 494 A.2d 504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
     Court lacks authority to order county to pay for needed deputies from unappropriated funds. Ledbetter v. Duncan, 676 S.W.2d 91 (Tenn. App. 1984).
     Employees on overtime while appearing in court must turn over witness fees to their department. Perry v. Metropolitan Dade County, 437 So.2d 295 (Fla. App. 1983).
     Employees have no legal right to continuation of college incentive pay in future years. Foley v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 421 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind.App. 1981).
     “Pay compression” assumes that higher differentials prevailing elsewhere are the norm and, hence that the local structure is “compressed.” Pay differences between positions in the promotional scheme “must be taken into account in determining the proper relativity of salaries.” The phenomenon of “pay compression” occurs where “the differentials between positions of lower and higher job content are smaller.” Air New Zealand Ltd. and N.Z. Airline Pilots Assn., 77 LA (BNA) 667 (Perretti 1981). {N/R}
     Mayor cannot refuse to pay raises established by city council over Mayor's veto. City of Gary v. State ex rel. Paris, 406 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind.App. 1980).
     Interim service at higher rank, although no vacancy technically exists, entitles employee to extra pay for that period. Adams v. Goldner, 79 N.J. 78, 397 A.2d 1088 (1979).
     New Hampshire rejects argument that detectives possess higher skills and should receive greater pay. Wilson v. State Personnel Cmsn. 387 A.2d 1160 (N.H. 1978).
     City can collect overpayment of wages inadvertently paid firefighters. Moran v. City of Milwaukie, 568 P.2d 711 (Ore. App. 1977).
     Kentucky Supreme Court upholds local ordinance setting hourly firefighter scale before time-and-one-half law became operative. Snyder v. City of Owensboro, 555 S.W.2d 246 (Ky. 1977).
     Emergency law supercedes collectively bargained contract. Mutual Aid Assn. of Paid Fire Dept. and Local 628, I.A.F.F. v. City of Yonkers, 401 N.Y.S.2d 98 (A.D. 1978).
     Does a change in pay periods entitle firefighters to a back pay award? Tennessee court finds claims lacking in substance. Metropolitan Fire Fighters Assn., Local 763 AFL-CIO v. Briley, 524 S.W.2d 671 (Tenn. 1975).
     $12 million in back pay to Los Angeles firemen and police affirmed. Melendres v. City of Los Angeles, 115 Cal.Rptr. 409, 40 C.A.3d 718, aff'd 117 Cal.Rptr. 577 (Cal. 1974).
     See also: Fair Labor Standards Act; Holiday and Premium Pay; Pay Parity; Stand-by Pay Claims.

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu