Employment & Labor Law for Public Safety Agencies

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu

F.L.S.A. - Overtime - In General

     Monthly Law Journal Article: On-Call Duty, 2008 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article:
Overtime Pay for Preduty Preparations, 2009 (1) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Overtime Pay Entitlement for Public Safety Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Part 1, 2016 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article:
Overtime Pay Entitlement for Public Safety Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Part 2, 2016 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.
     Monthly Law Journal Article:
Overtime Pay Entitlement for Public Safety Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Part 3, 2016 (11) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.

     The plaintiffs were a class of employees each of whom worked in two separate part-time capacities for the county. The county tracked and paid them for each of their individual jobs but in 2011 became aware that it had failed to aggregate the hours from both jobs, thus failing to pay overtime for hours beyond 40 each pay period. The county conceded owing overtime for such hours, but the plaintiffs claimed a “willful” violation which, if proven, would expand the limitations period for claims, allowing the plaintiffs to receive larger awards. A federal appeals court upheld a determination that there was inadequate evidence of a willful violation. There was no evidence that the county was subjectively aware of the overtime problem at the time of the violations. SourYavong v. County of Lackawanna, #15-3895, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 18173, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 793 (3rd Cir).

     The Kansas Bureau of Investigation’s (KBI) official overtime policy provides one-and-a-half times the normal hourly rate for hours worked in excess of eighty hours in a two-week period. A former KBI agent claimed that the employer applied pressure on employees to work overtime hours without claiming overtime in violation of state and federal laws. He also argued that he was unlawfully fired in retaliation for complaining about this. The Kansas Supreme Court found the complaint about unpaid overtime sufficient to preclude summary judgment on whether the plaintiff engaged in protected activity. The court stated that state law recognizes retaliatory discharge as a cause of action when an employee is fired for asserting rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law. Further proceedings were ordered on the employee’s claim. Lumry v. State, #108425, 2016 Kan. Lexis 604
     Joining the D.C., Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that employees may pursue a collective wage and overtime action against their employer under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., at the same time as a class action brought based on more protective state minimum wage and overtime laws and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) in the same proceeding. In a case brought against a county sheriff, the appeals court overturned a trial court decision that held that those two types of lawsuits were "mutually exclusive and irreconcilable." Calderone v. Scott, #15-14187, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 17606, 26 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 806, 167 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P36474 (11th Cir.).
     An employee of a county surveyor's office was given permission by his supervisor to take a class during work hours, but was told that he would have to treat the time as unpaid or vacation time. He agreed to that, but when the class began, worked through lunch and came in early for a week. He was paid for that time, but fired for failing to follow his supervisor's order. He sued for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and an Indiana state wage claim statute. He claimed that while he would put his actual time worked on his time card, the hours were then reduced, with him being told that he could not be paid for over 37.5 hours in any one workweek. The county responded that he had been paid for all time he certified and that his recollection of his time worked was "demonstrably unreliable." Affirming summary judgment for the county, the appeals court noted that the plaintiff failed to refute the county contention that his evidence was implausible He failed to show that he worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Melton v. Tippecanoe Cnty., #14-3599, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 17352, 167 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P36473, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1673 (7th Cir.).

     Employees at a private manufacturing plant were required to be onsite before and after their work shifts to "don and doff" uniforms as well as protective gear. They were also required to help with "shift relief," in which employees from an outgoing shift shared information about the status of the work with incoming shift workers. The time that donning, doffing, and shift relief took varied from 30 to 60 minutes a day. The company paid employees for 30 minute meal breaks and two other 30 minute breaks during their 12-hour shifts, even though not legally required to do so. The paid break time was always in excess of the time spent on donning and doffing and shift relief. A class action lawsuit sought overtime under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and a Pennsylvania state statute for the time spent donning and doffing and providing shift relief. While the trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, a federal appeals court reversed, finding that the court's prior precedent limited offsetting to "extra compensation" not included in the regular rate, which was therefore inapplicable to the paid break time regularly paid. Smiley v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co., #14-4583, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 18242 (3rd Cir.).
     Active and former park rangers employed by a city Parks Department sued, claiming that they were entitled to pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent donning and doffing uniforms and equipment such as bulletproof vests and utility belts that they were required to wear which contained handcuffs, mace, and other materials. Overturning partial summary judgment for the employer, the federal appeals court found that, on the current record, it could not conclude that the plaintiffs' donning and doffing of uniforms were not integral and indispensable to their principal job activities. Further proceedings were required to determine first whether the time was nevertheless non-compensable under either the de minimis doctrine or under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Perez v. The City of New York, #15-315, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 14104 (2nd Cir.).
     Current and former police officers claimed that the city violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-19 by failing to include payments of unused portions of their benefit allowances when calculating their regular rate of pay, resulting in lower overtime pay. The federal appeals court agreed with this claim as the money paid for unused benefits was payment for work. The plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages because the city failed to show that it attempted in good faith to comply with the law. Flores v. City of San Gabriel, #14-56421, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 10018 (8th Cir.).
     Employees of a private food processing plant who worked in certain department were required to wear protective gear. The employer compensated some, but not all, employees for donning and doffing the gear, and did not record the time each employee spent on these activities. Employees who were not compensated sued under both federal and state wage laws. A jury awarded approximately $2.9 million in overtime, based on a study by an industrial relations expert who videotaped observations of how long various donning and doffing activities took, and estimated an average of 8 minutes a day for two departments and 21.5 minutes for a third. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the result and the methodology, holding that because a representative sample could be the only feasible way to establish liability, it could not be regarded as improper solely because the claim was brought as a class action. Had each class member brought an individual action, they could have relied on the study to establish liability. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, #14-1146, 194 L. Ed. 2d 124, 2016 U.S. Lexis 2134.
     Current and former Vermont State employees sued the state in state court for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The state removed the lawsuit to federal court, and the trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. While the state's removal of the case to federal court may have had the effect of waiving Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, the defendants had not expressly waived the state's general sovereign immunity from a private FLSA lawsuit. The dismissal was therefore proper. The fact that the state had recognized, in a state statute, its legal obligation to comply with the FLSA did not constitute an intentional waiver of immunity from a lawsuit against it under the FLSA's private right of action provisions. Beaulieu v. State of Vermont, #13-4198, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16505 (2nd Cir.).
     Firefighters and emergency medical personnel were not entitled to overtime under the FLSA for time spent loading and unloading gear from their cars and taking their gear to temporary duty stations other than their homes. The time spent on this activity was not "integral and indispensable" to the principal work they were employed to perform, and rather was "preliminary" or "postpreliminary" under the Portal-to-Portal amendments to the FLSA. The court further ruled that the defendant agency did not act in violation of the FLSA when it excluded money paid to the plaintiffs from their "regular rate" of pay which was then used to calculate the proper rate of overtime. Balestrieri v. Menlo Park Fire Protection Dist., #12-15975, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 15785 (9th Cir.).
     Department of Veterans Affairs nurses claimed that they were improperly denied overtime pay for certain hours worked. Under the applicable statute, the agency was required to compensate for "officially ordered and approved" overtime work. The U.S. Claims Court rejected the nurses' claim, since they failed to allege that the agency had "expressly directed" them to work the overtime hours. A federal appeals court reversed finding that the statute did not require the official order or approval to be in a particular form, and the agency had not adopted any regulation mandating a particular procedure for approving overtime. The nurses did allege that the agency had "knowledge" that they work overtime on a recurring and involuntary basis, and that the employer approved or ordered such work through "expectation, requirement, and inducement." Further proceedings on the claim were therefore ordered. Mercier v. United States, #14-5074, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 8003 (Fed. Cir.).
     A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict for a city in an overtime lawsuit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 207(a) brought by fifty-four fire suppression lieutenants. The city raised an affirmative defense under the executive exemption to the overtime provisions, and judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiffs was properly denied because a reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence, that each category of disciplinary suspensions and deductions was permissible as falling under either a workplace conduct rule or a safety rule of major significance. The plaintiffs' proposed instructions on wait time, which the trial court declined to give, was not an accurate statement of the law. Watkins v. Montgomery, Alabama, #13-11718, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 24416 (11th Cir.).
     Michigan correctional officers had to perform several activities before and after their shifts, including punching a time clock, waiting in line for security, and walking to their assigned locations, but they were not paid for the time expended in doing these things. The officers and their union sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law, seeking compensation. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit on sovereign immunity grounds. Absent a past of imminent future violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress had no remedial power under Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the state's immunity from suit, so the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to address these claims against the Department of Corrections, a state agency. Once the federal claims were dismissed, the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and might be pursued in state court. Mich. Corrs. Org. v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., #14-1028, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 23761, 2014 Fed App. 294P (6th Cir.)
    A police union failed to show that a township violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper overtime, pay compensation for muster time, and provide compensation for time spent putting on and taking off uniforms. The township qualified for the Sec. 207(k) exemption from overtime by adopting a valid work period requiring that officers work either a seven day or a nine day period on a regularly recurring basis. The court found that officers were compensated for muster time as a component of their negotiated salaries, and that there was a custom or practice under the collective bargaining agreement of not compensating officers fo time spent donning and doffing clothes. The officers had the burden of showing that they performed work for which they were not properly compensated, and failed to do so. Rosano v. Township of Teaneck, #13-1263, 754 F.3d 177, (3rd Cir. 2014).
     A former police officer claimed that he was not fired, as the department claimed, for working through lunch without requesting overtime, but rather in retaliation for testifying in a lawsuit brought by a fellow officer concerning a FLSA claim. His retaliation claim was not precluded by the police department's board of rights' recommendation that he be fired for insubordination fo not claiming overtime. The evidence in the case did not support the city's claim that the firing was based on the content of his testimony rather than the mere fact that he testified. The officer was awarded $50,000 in liquidated damages and $579,000 in attorneys' fees, and the appeals court affirmed this award. Avila v. LAPD, #12-55931, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 13052, 22 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 1612 (9th Cir.).
     The U.S. Department of Labor claimed that the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services engaged in both overtime and recordkeeping violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff provided proof of the claimed violations supported by 400 employee signatures, but 350 of the signatures were obtained after the lawsuit was filed. The trial court ordered the plaintiff to answer three interrogatories that would disclose those 350 employees' names, ruling that they did not qualify as "informants" whose identities were protected from discovery by the government's informants privilege, because of when their signatures were obtained. The appeals court found that the trial judge had erroneously limited the scope of the informants' privilege and that the defendant agency did not have a compelling need for the identities or identifying information of the 250 employees who would not be witnesses at trial, and who said that they wished to remain anonymous. Perez v. U.S. District Court, #13-72195, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 7301 (9th Cir.).
     Employees who work at steel plants sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking overtime pay for additional time they spent putting on and taking off protective gear required by their employer because of workplace hazards. While such time is otherwise compensable, the employer argued that it was able to regard it as non-compensable under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement with the employee's union. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(o) allows for collective bargaining as to whether time spent "changing clothes" or washing at the beginning or end of the workday was paid work time. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed, ruling that the protective gear involved amounted to "clothes," even if it was indispensable for performing the work. The time spent putting on earplugs and safety glasses was minimal, so that even if they were not "clothes," the time period involved could fairly be labeled time spent changing clothes or washing. The employees were not entitled to overtime for the time. Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., #12-417, 2014 U.S. Lexis 799.
     Employees who work at steel plants sued their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking overtime pay for additional time they spent putting on and taking off protective gear required by their employer because of workplace hazards. While such time is otherwise compensable, the employer argued that it was able to regard it as non-compensable under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement with the employee's union. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(o) allows for collective bargaining as to whether time spent "changing clothes" or washing at the beginning or end of the workday was paid work time. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed, ruling that the protective gear involved amounted to "clothes," even if it was indispensable for performing the work. The time spent putting on earplugs and safety glasses was minimal, so that even if they were not "clothes," the time period involved could fairly be labeled time spent changing clothes or washing. The employees were not entitled to overtime for the time. Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., #12-417, 2014 U.S. Lexis 799.
     Sixteen firefighters sued a city for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for work done at the request of the state of South Dakota to fight wildfires in western South Dakota and Nebraska. A federal appeals court held that the trial court inappropriately granted the city summary judgment on its argument that the "special detail" exemption to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 207(p)(1) applied. The city argued that the firefighters volunteered for the state firefighting assignment, and that, because the state and city are separate and independent employers, the hours that the firefighters worked for each are not combined for purposes of overtime pay. The appeals court, however, found that there was a factual issue as to whether the firefighters were actually working for the city during their wildfire deployment. Specht v. City of Sioux Falls, #10-1733, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 9553 (8th Cir.).
     Regarding the timeliness of FLSA claims, a new cause of action accrues each time a police department issues a deficient paycheck. Figueroa v. D.C. Metro. Police Dept., #09-7133, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 3168 (D.C. Cir.).
     Although management required a police officer to attend AA meetings and obtain counseling as a condition of retaining his job, the time spent in these activities was not compensable work for FLSA purposes. Todd v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, #5:08-295, 2009 WL 4800052, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115183 (E.D. Ky. 2009).
     Eleventh Amendment bars overtime lawsuits brought against state agencies. Keeler v. Fla. Dept. of Health, #10-10987, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 19912 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
    Treatment for alcoholism, while off-duty, was non-compensable. "The Court cannot find that while in treatment, [the plaintiff] learned any skills that enabled him to become a more effective or valuable police officer." Attendance at AA meetings and psychiatric evaluations, although mandated by his employer, "does not constitute compensable 'work' under the FLSA." Todd v. Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115183 (E.D. Ky.).
     There is a three-part inquiry related to compensation for "donning and doffing." The first is whether the activity constitutes "work"; the second is whether the activity is an "integral and indispensable" duty; and third, whether the activity is de minimis. Because Mesa police officers have the option and ability to don and doff their uniforms and gear at home, the specific activity of donning and doffing uniforms and gear at the workplace is not compensable. One judge of the panel of three concurred in the judgment only and dissented in part. Bamonte v. City of Mesa, #08-16206, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 6188 (9th Cir.).
     Oakland, California, city council approves a settlement with 571 police officers who brought "don-and-doff" overtime claims. In addition to paying $1.75 million in legal fees, current officers will receive 130 hours of vacation time and 60 retired officers will receive $3,500 each. Valladon v. City of Oakland, #3:06-cv-07478, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 97485 (N.D. Calif. 2009).
     Arbitrator finds that a federal correctional institution violated the bargaining agreement and the FLSA by failing to pay officers for necessary pre- and post-shift activities. “… neither an employee nor a union can voluntarily agree to not be paid for performing work in excess of the regular work day.” 29 C.F.R. §785.11 Federal Bur. of Prisons (La Tuna) and AFGE L-83, FMCS Case #060908/05274-1, 126 LA (BNA) 1271 (Curtis, 2009).
    Arbitrator awards double back pay to federal correctional officers and health workers in Texas who were unpaid for the time spent getting freshly recharged radio batteries. Correctional officers and staff are on-duty from the moment they set foot on institution grounds. In addition to nearly $1 million in pay and liquidated damages, the union is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Fed. Bur. of Prisons and AFGE L-1006 (II), FMCS Case #07/04342, 126 LA (BNA) 705 (Nicholas, 2009).
     A class action has been filed by employees of a phone service claiming that they should have been paid for off the clock responses to e-mail and text messages at all hours of the day.” Agui v. T-Mobile, USA, #1:09-cv-02955, Complaint (E.D.N.Y. 2009).
     Differing from other courts, in an opinion with 148 endnotes, a federal judge granted a summary judgment in favor of management, holding that time spent donning and doffing police gear by Phoenix patrol officers is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dager v. City of Phoenix, #2:06-cv-01412, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20205 (D. Ariz.).
     A federal jury in San Diego found that the time that eight police officers spent performing various tasks prior to their shifts was not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The officers alleged that departmental policy required them to load equipment into their squad cars and to check for e-mails and voicemail before their shifts began. Abbe v. City of San Diego, #05cv1629 (S.D. Cal.). In an earlier ruling the court found that the "time spent donning and doffing safety gear is de minimis as a matter of law," and is not compensable. See 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 87501, 2007 WL 4146696; and 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 79010.
    Federal court rejects the claims of a federal officer who sought overtime for the period spent while commuting to work in a agency vehicle; “time spent by law enforcement officers driving to and from work in government-owned police vehicles [is] not compensable under the FLSA.” Wolfen v. U.S., #03-2665C, 84 Fed. Cl. 662, 2008 U.S. Claims Lexis 345. Corrections employees hired by a private prison-management organization were entitled a conditional certification of a class action consisting of corrections officers, corrections counselors, case managers, and clerical employees where they alleged that management regularly required them to work off-the-clock before and after their shifts. Barnwell v. Corrections Corp. of Amer., # 2:2008-cv-02151, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 104230 (D. Kan.).
     In a case where over 15,000 NYPD officers claimed that the city violated FLSA overtime provisions involving millions of dollars in damages, the court rules that management could "limit the availability of future overtime to officers who consistently choose cash compensation for mandatory overtime. An officer must therefore decide whether he or she wishes to have greater future overtime opportunities or whether the officer prefers to be compensated in cash for the overtime he or she has already worked." Scott v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 94075 (S.D.N.Y.).
     Federal Air Marshals are not exempt from limitations on overtime earnings; the Congress could have expressly exempted them from FLSA, as it did with customs-service pilots. Management is exempted from paying overtime under §207(a) until the number of hours worked by an Air Marshal within a seven-day work period exceeds forty-three hours. Federal Air Marshals v. United States, #06-233, 2008 WL 4997346, 14 WH Cases2d (BNA) 442 (Fed. Cl. 2008); prior ruling at 74 Fed. Cl. 484, 2006 U.S. Claims Lexis 369.  
     Management violated the bargaining agreement and the FLSA when it did not compensate prison correctional officers for required pre-shift duties, where duties took substantial time and were indispensable. "All of the rounds of ammunition in the tower have to be counted by the on-coming officer ... to unload all clips ... then reload the clips and place them back in the weapons before the other officer can leave." The average time it took to perform the pre-shift activities was 30 minutes. Federal Bur. of Prisons and AFGE L-1242, FMCS Case #05-57849, 125 LA (BNA) 707 (Calhoun, 2008).
     Federal court declines to dismiss an overtime lawsuit brought by school resource officers. Whether the county police department and Board of Education were separate and independent employers for purposes of the special detail exemption of 29 U.S. Code. §207(p)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 553.227, is a question of fact. Baltimore Co. FOP L-4 v. Baltimore Co., #06-2709, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 49457 (D.Md.).
     Fire alarm inspectors were not entitled to pay for commuting time even though they carried extensive materials to their first inspection site. The Portal-to-Portal Act provides that ordinary commuting time is not compensable under FLSA, and carrying a briefcase does not transform commuting time into work time. Singh v. City of New York, #06-2969-cv, 524 F.3d 361, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9228, 13 WH Cases2d (BNA) 865 (2nd Cir.).
     Jail and patrol officers for a county sheriff's dept. who work part-time as civilian communications personnel do not need to be paid at the same rate that they earn as peace officers, because work performed in the communications division "is in a different capacity" from the work they perform in the detention and patrol divisions. Communications personnel perform civilian functions, not law enforcement duties. W&H Opin. Letter # FLSA2008-5NA, 2008 DOLWH Lexis 6.
     Arbitrator affirms a past practice of using the two-tier formula for calculating overtime. Special pay supplements are excludable. City of Santa Rosa and POA, CSMCS Case No. ARB-06-0595, 124 LA (BNA) 1463 (Staudohar, 2008).
     U.S. Dept. of Labor issues an advisory ruling that certain police officers who perform security duties during their off duty hours for a particular convention center and sports arena are not city employees for overtime purposes. The secondary employer is a private non-profit corporation. Factors that are relevant to the determination of whether two agencies are separate employers include: whether the employers have separate payroll, personnel and retirement systems; have separate budgets and funding authorities; whether they are separate legal entities; whether they deal with each other at arm's length concerning the employment of the individuals in question; how they are treated under state law and whether one entity controls the appointment of the officers of the other entity. Adm. W&H Letter FLSA2007-12.
     Seventh Circuit holds that a city is liable for overtime earned by a 911 dispatcher while attending mandatory psychotherapy sessions, plus travel time. Sehie v. City of Aurora, #04-2308, 432 F.3d 749, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 28781 (7th Cir.). See also W&H Adm. Ltr., 1989 DoLWH Lexis 7 (2 Aug. 1989).
     Federal court rejects a town's defense that time spent at the police academy was not compensable overtime under 29 C.F.R. §553.226(b)(2) because the training was required for certification under state law. That provision addresses training outside of normal working hours, whereas 29 C.F.R. §553.226(c) more specifically addressed training by police officers at a training facility such as a police academy. Olsen v. Town of Loudon, #06-cv-477, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24619 (D.N.H.).
     Federal agents who are assigned government-owned police vehicles are not entitled to be paid while commuting even though they are required to drive directly from home to work and back without unauthorized detours or stops. Adams v. U.S., #06-5040, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 31065 (Fed. Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Firefighters that voluntarily swap shifts with each other are entitled to overtime for any extra duty within the reporting period. Senger v. City of Aberdeen, #05-3803, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 24467, 11 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1537 (8th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     DoL rules that when a firefighter foregoes taking a holiday, the holiday pay he receives for that holiday may be excluded from calculation of the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes. Wage and Hour Opin. Letter FLSA2006-18NA. {N/R}
     Labor Dept. rules that overtime hours apply during prisoner transport assignments, even though a bargaining agreement purports to limit duty time to 8 hours a day. A CBA cannot override federal overtime laws. U.S. Dept. of Labor, Wage and Hour Div. Opinion Letter, #FLSA2006-12NA (2006). [2006 FP Nov]
     Labor Dept. holds that an agency is not required, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to compensate police officers for time spent in training on the use of a firearm that they carry voluntarily during their off-duty hours. Wage and Hour Opinion Letter, FLSA2006-19. [2006 FP Oct]
     Inmates performing work in or for a prison are not "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and are not entitled to the federal minimum wage. Loving v. Johnson, #05-10679, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16968, 11 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1025 (5th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Corrections workers were not entitled to 24-hours a day overtime compensation for time they spent when they remained at prison for their own safety while Hurricane Georges passed over Puerto Rico. The applicable Office of Personnel Management regulation permits the deduction of sleep time during a 24-hour shift from employee's payment without any implied or express agreement between employer and employees, and is a valid construction of the FLSA. Time spent sleeping is not work time. Blanco v. United States, #00-2208, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32237, 11 WH Cases2d 1064 (D. P.R. 2006). {N/R}
     Dept. of Labor rules that a city's police officers are exempt from overtime for hours worked as for a private security contractor, even if the city provides the officers with workers' compensation coverage while employed by a private contractor. W&H Opinion Letter FLSA2006-13. {N/R}
     Labor Dept. issues opinions that FLSA exempt employees cannot be docked for lost or broken equipment (including laptops and cell phones); exempt workers who fail to make up part of workday (because of a personal absence) cannot be disciplined; canine officers can be paid less than their regular rate for dog care; and a civilian code enforcement officer can volunteer as an unpaid police reserve officer without running afoul of the FLSA. Wage and Hour Opinion Letters, FLSA2006- 2, 6, 7 and 10. [2006 FP Jun]
     Firefighters were entitled to have lump-sum buyouts of their sick leave included in their regular rate of pay, for purposes of calculating overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Acton v. City of Columbia, #04-3985, 436 F.3d 969, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3005, 11 WH Cases2d (BNA) 359 (8th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Time spent by an emergency dispatcher to attend counseling sessions mandated by the city was compensable overtime. Schie v. City of Aurora, #04-2308, 432 F.3d 749, 11 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 129, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 28781 (7th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agreed to pay $1.475 million to settle two FLSA lawsuits brought by 140 county social workers and supervisors who claimed that they were not paid overtime. The county's Claims Board warned that if the cases proceeded to trial, the plaintiffs might recover as much as $24 million. Ellerd v. Co. of L.A., #CV 05-1211 and Le v. Co. of L.A., #CV 05-4200, 43 (2121) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 830 (C.D. Cal. 2005). {N/R}
     DoL rules that an employee performing two jobs for the same entity can be paid overtime based on two separate rates, provided that the employee and the employer have reached an agreement permitting such an arrangement. Wage and Hour Opinion Letter, 2005 DOLWH Lexis 22, 43 (2116) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 696 (Feb. 14, 2005). [2005 FP Oct]
     Citing the Portal-to-Portal Act, a federal court has dismissed a prolonged suit that claimed that federal law enforcement officers and agent were owed compensation for commuting in government-provided vehicles. Adams v. U.S., #90-162C, 2005 U.S. Claims Lexis 113 (2005). {N/R}
     For overtime purposes, "longevity pay, educational incentive pay, and senior officer pay must be added to the CBA's basic annual salary calculation." Wheeler v. Hampton Township, #04-1728, 399 F.3d 238, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 3217 (3d Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     The reasons for terminating a police canine officer were legitimate, and because more than seven months had passed since he raised an overtime claim under the FLSA, there was no proof the city retaliated against him for filing an overtime lawsuit. Grey v. City of Oak Grove, Mo., #03-3532, 396 F.3d 1031, 10 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 495, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 1453 (8th Cir. 2005). {N/R}
     Individuals who worked as unpaid police officers for a small Texas town to retain their commissions as peace officers under state law were "volunteers" under the FLSA, and should not be counted as "employees" for purposes of finding that the town, which had only three paid police officers at any time, met the five-employee threshold for public agencies to be covered by act's maximum hour requirements. The peace officer commissions provided by the town were only a formality. Cleveland v. City of Elmendorf, #04-50103, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 21595 (5th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     "Tribal law enforcement clearly is a part of tribal government" and is exempt from overtime provisions in the FLSA. Snyder v. Navajo Nation, #02-16632, 371 F.3d 658, 9 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1190, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11425 (9th Cir. 2004).{N/R}
     City-county police officers that moonlighted as security officers for a city Housing Authority were not entitled to time and one-half overtime pay. The Housing Authority was a separate, not a joint employer. Johnson v. Shawnee Co. Bd. of Co. Cmsnrs, #03-3196, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 11363 (10th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit holds that an officer is not entitled to select a specific day to use his comp time. Mortensen v. County of Sacramento, #03-15185, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 10163 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 FP Aug]
     In a suit brought by paid officers, a federal court in Texas finds that unpaid reserve polices officers were volunteers, not employees, under the FLSA. Cleveland v. City of Elmendorf, #SA-02-CA-0395, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 925, 9 WH Cases2d (BNA) 539 (W.D.Tex. 2004). {N/R}
     Arbitrator concludes that he lacked authority to interpret the FLSA, absent a specific delegation of such authority in the bargaining agreement. He noted that authority of an arbitrator flows from the Agreement between both Parties and not from the FLSA. City of Cincinnati and L-48 IAFF, 119 LA (BNA) 421, AAA Case #52-390-00601-03 (Donnelly, 2004). [2004 FP May]
     Arbitrator rejects a claim for two hours overtime because a corrections officer was required to visit a physician to obtain a note excusing a two-day sick period; officer was entitled to be paid for his $15 co-pay and $11 vehicle expense. U.S. Penitentiary and AFGE L-2343, 118 LA (BNA) 1324, FMCS #02/16571 (Pratte, 2003). [2004 FP Jan]
     Fifth Circuit holds that the FLSA does not require a public employer to authorize comp. time use as specifically requested by an employee. It only requires that the comp. time is allowed within a reasonable period after the employee requests its use. Houston Police Officers Union v. City of Houston, #01-21117, 330 F.3d 298, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 8096, 8 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1121 (5th Cir. 2003).{N/R}
     The Supreme Court has ruled 9-to-0 that when an employee brings a FLSA suit in state court, the employer can remove the claim to federal court. Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, #02-337, 123 S.Ct. 1882, 2003 U.S. Lexis 3677 (2003). {N/R}
     Supreme Court rules that a FLSA claim, filed in state court, can be removed from state to federal court. Breuer v. Jim's Concrete, #02-337, 123 S.Ct. 1882, 2003 U.S. Lexis 3677 (2003). {N/R}
     The actual number of hours worked, including overtime, should be used in calculating firefighters "hourly pay" for purposes of setting damages due for underpayment. Singer v. City of Waco, #01-51185, 324 F.3d 813, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 5858, 8 WH Cases2d (BNA) 993 (5th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Officer loses a retaliation suit against the town. Disciplinary action was fairly imposed for unrelated misconduct. Kearney v. Town of Wareham, #02-1264, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 25133, 8 WH Cases2d (BNA) 513 (1st Cir. 2002). [2003 FP Mar]
     Voluntary extra duty assignments for a city court were compensable at regular police hourly rates plus 50%. The fact that for 25 years the city paid a lower rate, never paid overtime, and the officers never complained is no excuse. The officers are entitled to double the differential (liquidated damages) for 3 years prior to filing the suit, plus legal fees. Cox v. Poughkeepsie, #01 Civ. 3794, 209 F.Supp.2d 319, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12579 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 Oct. FP]
     Seventh Circuit rules that a city was required to pay a firefighter overtime for time spent in paramedic training, even though he dropped out before completion; the city was entitled to reimbursement for some of its training expenses. Heder v. City of Two Rivers, #01-4118, 295 F.3d 777, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 13832, 7 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1665 (7th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     OPM issues a final rule on federal firefighter basic and overtime pay. The new method eliminates standby duty pay and authorizes overtime for both FLSA exempt and nonexempt firefighters. OPM Firefighter Pay, 67 Fed. Reg. 15463 (4/2/02). [N/R]
     Federal court dismisses a suit by California state corrections officers seeking damages against their superiors, in their individual capacities for failing to timely pay retroactive overtime pay increases. The court held that managers were not "employers" under the FLSA, and even if they were, sovereign immunity applies because the state was the real party in interest. Baird v. Kessler, #S-00-1619, 172 F.Supp.2d 1305, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19106 (E.D. Cal. 2001). [N/R]
     Federal court dismisses a suit by California state corrections officers seeking damages against their superiors, in their individual capacities for failing to timely pay retroactive overtime pay increases. The court held that managers were not "employers" under the FLSA, and even if they were, sovereign immunity applies because the state was the real party in interest. Baird v. Kessler, #S-00-1619, 172 F.Supp.2d 1305, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19106 (E.D. Cal. 2001). [N/R]
     Appeals court denies $2.8 million overtime claim for corrections officers who change into and out of their uniforms. Employers do not have to pay for change time if the bargaining agreement, or a recognized custom or past practice excludes such payments. Turner v. Philadelphia, #00-1519, 262 F.3d 222, 7 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 339, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 18785 (3rd Cir.). [2001 FP 151-2]
     A municipal or county police department is not a proper party to a civil action for overtime claims, because it is a sub-unit of a governmental entity and has no capacity to sue or be sued in its own name: Johnson v. Unif. Govt. of Wyandotte Co./Kansas City, KS, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2969, 6 WH Cases2d 1227 (Unpub., D.Kan. 2000); Baker v. Colo. Springs Police Dept., 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 33679, 1994 WL 673070 (10th Cir. 1994); Fritchey v. Denver Police Dept., 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 8135, 1994 WL 142474 (10th Cir. 1994); Whayne v. State of Kansas, 980 F.Supp. 387, 391 (D. Kan. 1997). {N/R}
     Tenth Circuit reinstates a FLSA retaliation claim of a police chief who claimed that he was demoted for supporting his wife's overtime claim against the city. Hinsdale v. City of Liberal, #00-3087, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 19349 (Unpub. 10th Cir.). {N/R}
     Six suspensions of a week or less over a six year period was not sufficient to establish an "actual practice" of imposing improper suspensions. Block v. City of Los Angeles, #99-56061, 253 F.3d 410, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 11749, 7 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 4 (9th Cir.). {N/R}
     A city that adopts a 42 day duty cycle for police officers still can have a 28 day "work period" for purposes of sec. 207(k). Nothing in the FLSA indicates that duty cycles of officers need have any correlation to officers' work periods. Franklin v. City of Kettering, #00-3247, 246 F.3d 531, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 6068, 2001 FED App. 0108P, 6 WH Cases 2d (BNA) 1615 (6th Cir.). {N/R}
     Sued for overtime, a city may offset against its liability under the FLSA, amounts paid to police pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. Nolan v. City of Chicago, 125 F.Supp.2d 324, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18864 (N.D. Ill. 2000). {N/R}
     State officials who were sued in their individual capacities by an employee for alleged retaliation under the FLSA could not claim sovereign immunity because the state will indemnify them for any adverse judgments and thus that state was the real party in interest. Hartman v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., #99CA1210, 2001 Colo. App. Lexis 310, 6 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1297 (Unpub. Colo. App.). {N/R}
     Arbitrator orders a theme park to pay for time spent changing between costumes and personal clothing. Teamsters L-385 and Walt Disney World, NLRB complaint (Chumley 2001). Disneyland California recently settled similar claims for $1.7 million. {N/R}
     Federal prison system settles overtime claims for $120 million; officers were not paid when getting or returning their equipment, before and after their shifts. AFGE and Dept of Justice, 38 (1879) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1065 (Aug. 2000). [2000 FP 168-9]
     Federal court refuses to dismiss overtime claim where officers volunteered for extra duty to be paid by the Housing Authority. Barajas v. Unified Govt. of Kansas City, Kan., #99-2448, 87 F.Supp.2d 1201, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2976, 6 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1220 (D. Kan.), citing 29 CFR 553.227, 52 FR 2032 (Jan. 16, 1987); FLSA Opin. Letter, 1993 WL 901149 (July 1, 1993). [2000 FP 150-2] See also, Nolan v. City of Chicago, 125 F.Supp. 2d 324, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18864 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
     Federal court in New Jersey finds that officers who voluntary work secondary employment, when the jobs assigned and paid by the city, are entitled to time-and-one-half compensation under the FLSA. Cahill v. City of New Brunswick, 99 F.Supp.2d 464, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7193 (D.N.J.). [2000 FP 119]
     Supreme Court allows public employers to compel workers to use their accumulated comp time. Christensen v. Harris Co., #981167, 120 S.Ct.1655, 2000 U.S. Lexis 3003, 5 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1825. [2000 FP 102]
     Federal court's order to a sheriff, to reimburse the county more than $1 million for unpaid overtime, is reversed. Fifth Circuit holds that a public official or employee is not required at common law to indemnify the city or county for liability incurred by the official or employee. Barfield v. Madison Co., Miss., #9860636, 212 F.3d 269, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 9536, 6 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1 (5th Cir.). [2000 FP 102-3]
     Border Patrol can be liable for double damages in supervisory overtime; no presumption of good faith. Adams v. U.S., #96-93C, 2000 U.S. Claims Lexis 58, 38 (1859) G.E.R.R. 513 (4/5/00). [2000 FP 88-9]
     Supreme Court holds that the FLSA does not prohibit public employers from mandating the use of accrued compensatory time. 120 S.Ct. 1655, 2000 U.S. Lexis 3003, 5 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1825. The majority rejected a DoL opinion which said that the FLSA prohibits a public employer from requiring workers to take comp time on an as-required basis. The Court also declined to review another cases raising similar issues, in which the employer prevailed. Collins v. Lobdell, 188 F.3d 1124, 5 WH Cases2d 929 (9th Cir.), cert. den. #99-592 & #99-788 sub nom Spokane Val. Fire Ptn. Dist v. Collins.
     Mandatory comp time: also see note at 5 Tul. L. Rev. 2171 (1999); Baker v. Stone Co., 41 F.Supp.2d 965, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3331, 5 WH Cases2d (BNA) 414 (W.D. Mo.); issue distinguished in Theisen v. Maple Grove, 41 F.Supp.2d 932, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 415 (D. Minn.).
     Federal court allows claim for double damages in LAPD overtime and comptime lawsuit. Comptime is "paid" when it is used, not when it is booked. Claim could reach $200 to $500 million. Kimpel v. Williams, #CV93-3441 and Huff v. Parks, #CV98-10245 (C.D.Cal. 1999), 37 G.E.R.R. (BNA) #1793. [1999 FP 71-2]
     Overtime payment schedule negotiated by a village and the union, under which police officers were paid on weekly basis, but overtime pay was accumulated and paid by separate check on monthly basis, violated the prompt payment portion (Sec. 7a) of the FLSA. Brooks v. Ridgefield Park NJ, 185 F.3d 130, 5 WH Cases2d (BNA) 801 (3rd Cir. 1999). {N/R}
     Firefighters were entitled to have sleep time counted as work time; gap time disallowed. Carter v. Charleston, 995 F.Supp. 620 (D.S.C. 1997). {N/R}
     Border Patrol canine officers lose overtime claim for commuting time under Portal-to-Portal Act. Bobo v. U.S., 37 Fed. Cl. 690, 1997 U.S. Claims Lexis 82, 3 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1587. [1998 FP 86-7]
     Appeals court rejects suit by police officers who must commute long distances to a mandatory training program. Imada v. City of Hercules, #97-15405, 138 F.3d 1294, 4 WH Cases2d (BNA) 705, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 4970 (9th Cir.). [1998 FP 70]
     Officers who must maintain fitness standards for SWAT team assignments are not entitled to overtime pay for off-duty workout sessions at the gym. Dade Co. v. Alvarez, 124 F.3d 1380, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 28604 (11th Cir.). SWAT team won $2 million for overtime in the District Court in 1995. [1996 FP 42 & 1998 FP 7]
     Federal court allows overtime for a police officer who was not compensated for caring for his firearm and cleaning his takehome car. He also could recover for time spent caring for his uniforms, except that claim was covered by the bargaining agreement. Hellmers v. Town of Vestal, 3 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1837, 1997 U.S.Dist. Lexis 10125, 969 F.Supp. 837 (N.D.N.Y.). [1997 FP 165-6]
     The sheriff and county board of supervisors can be personally liable for violating the anti-retaliation section of the FLSA, Sec. 15(a)(3). Barfield v. Madison Co., 984 F.Supp. 491, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18729, 4 WH Cases2d (BNA) 426 (S.D.Miss. 1997); reversed at 212 F.3d 269, 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 9536, 6 WH Cases2d (BNA) 1 (5th Cir. 2000). {N/R}
     Former police academy cadets lose landmark suit claiming overtime for a residential, ten-week basic training program. Banks v. City of Springfield, 959 F.Supp. 972 (C.D.Ill. 1997). [1997 FP 166]
     Private ambulance service is "engaged in interstate commerce" for FLSA purposes. Jerome v. Zorich, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 16781, 118 F.3d 682 (9th Cir.). {N/R}
     California to pay $10 million to correctional officers who were not paid for performing minor tasks at the beginning and end of their shifts. Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Wilson, 109 (232) L.A.D.J. {V&S} 6 (E.D.Cal. 1996). [1997 FP 23]
     Time spent in cleaning & fueling vehicles was not exempt under the portal-to-portal act; caring for equip. & uniforms was compensable. Treece v. Little Rock, 923 F.Supp. 1122 (E.D.Ark. 1996). {N/R}
     Fed. app. ct. upholds a constitutional challenge to the "salary basis test." Yourman v. Dinkins, 84 F.3d 655 (2d Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 137- 8]
     Federal court refuses to dismiss overtime claims of police officers who must care for their guns, uniforms and take-home cars while off-duty. Treece v. Little Rock, 923 F.Supp. 1122 (E.D.Ark. 1996). [1996 FP 138]
     Federal appeals court holds that overtime compensation includes premium pay, but not bonuses for unused sick leave. Featsent v. Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 1995). [1996 FP 101-2]
     The sheriff is not the employer of an inmate in a work-release program. Inmate was not obliged to "donate" 10% of his hearings to a crime victims compensation fund. Reimonenq v. Foti, 72 F.3d 472 (5th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     City did not violate FLSA when it extended officers' regular workshifts in anticipation of application of the law to local governments. Ball v. Dodge City, 67 F.3d 897 (10th Cir. 1995). {N/R}
     Officers' overtime pay claim for 15 minutes of preshift roll-call is upheld. Barefield v. Vil. of Winnetka, 81 F.3d 704, 3 WH Cases2d 353 (7th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Article: "The impact of electronic paging and on-call policies on overtime pay under the FLSA," 11 (2) The Labor Lawyer (ABA) 231-246 (Summer, 1995). Amer. Bar Assn. (312) 988-5555. {N/R}
     Inmates in a prisoner industry program are not entitled to minimum wage payments. Lentz v. Anderson, #3:93CV7274 (N.D. Ohio 1995). [1995 FP 134]
     City was entitled to reduce the hourly wage rate paid firefighters, including overtime, to equal the normal annual pay rate, to avoid wage liability under the FLSA. York v. City of Wichita Falls, 48 F.3d 919 (5th Cir. 1995). [1995 FP 102]
     Fed. app. court reverses overtime award for N.Y.C.T.A. police canine officers. Reich v. N.Y.C.T.A., 45 F.3d 646 (2nd Cir. 1995). [1995 FP 70]
     Meal periods was work time for municipal firefighters. Rotondo v. City of Georgetown SC, 869 F.Supp. 369 (D.S.C. 1994). {N/R}
     Corrections dept could not deduct meal periods from work time for officers required to remain on prison grounds. Brinkman v. Dept. of Corrections, 21 F.3d 370 (10th Cir. 1994). [1995 FP 55-6]
     University police officers were entitled to overtime after 40 hours of work, not 43 hours for other classes of police officers. Adams v. Pittsburg St. Univ., 832 F.Supp. 318 (D.Kan. 1993). {N/R}
     Federal court in N.Y.C. held that commuting time for police canine officers is compensable; appeals court reverses. Reich v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 839 F.Supp. 171 (E.D.N.Y. 1993); 45 F.3d 646, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 832, 2 WH Cases2d (BNA) 833 (2nd Cir. 1/17/95). [1994 FP 149-50]
     Federal appeals court finds that summary judgment is inappropriate for overtime dispute. Whether county EMTs are exempt depends on facts of case. Wouters v. Martin County, 9 F.3d 924 (11th Cir. 1993); cert. petit. filed, #93-1867, see 62 LW 3867. {N/R}
     Eighth Circuit declines to follow overtime decision of the Ninth Circuit and rules that asst. fire chiefs are exempt, despite the fact their pay is docked for absences. Mere possibility that an employer might make an improper pay deduction does not defeat an employee's salaried status. McDonnell v. City of Omaha, 999 F.2d 293/at 296 (8th Cir. 1993); cert.den. No, 93-890, 62 LW 3573 (1994). [1994 FP 72-3]
     Federal courts uphold firefighter overtime; employment agreement ruled coercive. Johnson v. City of Columbia, 949 F.2d 127 (4th Cir. en banc 1991). [1993 FP 8]
     Police detectives in Emporia initially successful in asserting overtime claims for lunch periods; liquidated (double) damages allowed. Federal appeals court reverses, and holds that detective meal periods were not work periods. Armitage v. City of Emporia, 782 F.Supp. 537 (D. Kan. 1992), reversed 982 F.2d 430 (10th Cir. 1992). [1993 FP 53]
     Federal court in Baltimore rules FD-EMS personnel were not exempt from FLSA 40-hour overtime provision. Nalley v. Mayor of Baltimore, 796 F.Supp. 194 (D.Md. 1992). [1993 FP 54]
     A federal trial court in Minnesota and federal appeals court in California, rule that inmates employed in prison industries, are not covered by FLSA minimum wage provisions. McMaster v. State of Minnesota, #4-92-1058, 31 (1515) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 673 (D.Minn. 1993); Hale v. State of Arizona, 61 LW 2684 (9th Cir. en banc 1993). [1993 FP 103-4]
     Federal court in NC holds that fire dept. could not deduct 8-hours of sleep time from 24-hour shifts because employees never agreed to the deduction. Burgess v. Catawba Co., 805 F.Supp. 341 (W.D.N.C. 1992). [1993 FP 105]
     Federal appeals court says state must pay inmates the minimum wage for employment services. Hale v. Arizona, #88-15785, 30 (1472) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 960 (9th Cir. 1992). [1992 FP 117-8]
     Employee can receive double [liquidated] damages even where the employer demonstrates good faith and reasonable grounds, if the judge so requires in the exercise of discretion, under 29 U.S. Code 260. Hayes v. McIntosh, 604 F.Supp. 10 (N.D. Ind. 1094). [1992 FP 153]
     Federal jury awards members of bomb squad 12 hours overtime pay for each 24-hour period of on-call status. Dornbos v. O'Grady, 1990 WL 179711 (N.D. Ill. 1990). [1992 FP 8]
     Employees who were required to stay overnight in a mental facility were entitled to additional pay and overtime for the total time spent at the institution, without an 8-hour deduction for "sleep time." Hultgren v. County of Lancaster, 913 F.2d 498 8th Cir. (1990).
     Firefighter who was called to work during period which he was on "administrative leave with pay," was entitled to time and one-half, not just the additional half-time. City of Yukon v. Firefighters Local 2055, 792 P.2d 1176 (Okla. 1990).
     Federal judge may exercise discretion and enter liquidated (double) damages in overtime cases even if the employer acts in good faith, citing 29 U.S. Code 260. Hayes v. McIntosh, 604 F.Supp. 10 (N.D. Ind). {N/R}
     Appeals court holds that the Congress did not intend to make overtime provisions of the fair labor standards amendments of 1985 retroactive. Austin v. City of Bisbee, 855 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1988).
     Federal Court rejects overtime claims for jury and military duty, sick and annual leave; not part of FLSA working hours. Lanehart v. Devine, 615 F.Supp. 1300 (D. Md. 1985).
     Off-duty Louisiana police officers who appear in court were entitled to statutory witness fee or overtime, but not both. Jones v. City of Lafayette, 539 So.2d 672 (La. App. 1989).
     Taking phone calls at home is work time, compensable at overtime rates. Staying at home in case the phone rings is "standby" time, and although compensable, is not "work time" at overtime rates. Hickey v. State of Kansas Corp. Cmsn., 765 P.2d 1108 (Kan. 1988).
     Kansas Supreme Court overturns back pay award for meal time; restrictions were not sufficient to call such periods "work time" and collectively bargained agreement excluded payment. Atteberry v. Ritchie, 756 P.2d 424 (Kan. 1988).
     Federal appeals court rejects pre-Garcia overtime claims; supreme court decision not retroactive. Austin v. City of Bisbee 855 F.2d 1429 (9th Cir. 1988).
     Public employees entitled to unpaid comp time when they leave their employment. Schoonover v. Bonner County, 750 P.2d 95 (Idaho 1988).
     Federal court rules that accumulated overtime is not a "property right" and upholds rule that comp time not taken by year end disappears and is forfeited. Jackson v. Dept. of Public Safety of La., 675 F.Supp. 1025 (M.D. La. 1987).
     Firefighters win appeal; they are entitled to overtime pay for periods of "leave with pay" such as illness, vacation, jury duty and military reserve or guard duty. Lanehart v. Horner, 818 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
     Management could abolish 12-hour work shifts to avoid overtime pay liability. Hennepin Co. Ambulance Drivers Assn. v. County of Hennepin, 394 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. App. 1986).
     Kentucky and Ohio disagree over whether "roll-call" periods are work time. City of Louisville v. Gnagie, 716 S.W.2d 236 (Ky. 1986) and Ebright v. Whitehall, 455 N.E.2d 1307 (Ohio App. 1982).
     Federal Court rejects overtime claims for jury and military duty, sick and annual leave; not part of FLSA working hours. Lanehart v. Devine, 615 F.Supp. 1300 (D. Md. 1985).
     Phoenix suburb hit with large back pay verdict; appellate court concludes half-hour meal period was work time. Pendergast v. City of Tempe. 691 P.2d 726 (Ariz. 1984); Armour & Co. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944).
     State of Michigan obligated to pay city firefighters" overtime claims, mandated by state law. City of Adrian et al v. Michigan, 362 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. 1984).
     Meal time for patrol officers was work time. Madera Police Off. Assn. v. City of Madera, 204 Cal.Rptr. 422 (Cal. 1984).
     Dept. must pay accumulated "comp" time to employee if it has done so in past years (when hours were accumulated). Oswald v. County of Aiken, 315 S.E.2d 146 (S.C. App. 1984).
     Overtime, lunch hours, coffee breaks and work assignments not a matter for the federal court. Brown v. Brienen, 722 F.2d 360 (7th Cir. 1983).
     City or county not liable for overtime pay in excess of amount budgeted by commissioners. Ball v. Escambia County Commission, 439 So.2d 148 (Ala. 1983).
     Ohio appellate court finds roll-call and meal times are working periods and employees are entitled to time-and-one-half. Ebright v. City of Whitehall, 8 Ohio App.3d 29, 455 N.E.2d 1307 (1982).
     Lunch periods are not working time even if subject to recall and numerous conditions and restrictions are imposed. Fowler v. State Personnel Board, 185 Cal. Rptr. 292 (App. 1982).
     Chicago fire paramedics get comp time, not extra pay for compulsory off-duty training sessions. Nutter v. Blair, 430 N.E.2d 155 (Ill.App. 1981).
     Meal periods of police officers held as "working time" by Missouri court; officers were entitled to overtime pay. Brooks v. Whaley, 613 S.W.2d 656 (Mo.App. 1980); also see L.A. Fire and Police Prot. League v. City of Los Angeles, 23 Cal.App.3d 67, 99 Cal.Rptr. 908 (1972).
     Restriction against excessive overtime for senior officers does not violate age discrimination prohibitions. Freeman v. New York City Dept. of Correction, 420 N.Y.S.2d 536 (Misc. 1979).
     Reduction of work week agreement determined. Ypsilanti Fire Fighters Union and City of Ypsilanti, Arbitration Award #54-39-0213-77 (Ellman, 1977).
     Off duty training as "comp time". Wilson v. County of Santa Clara, 137 Cal.Rptr. 78 (App. 1977).
     Court time includes luncheon breaks. City of Allentown, Pa., and IAFF Local 302, (Alderfer, 1976).
     Firemen's signing of release of city from paying back overtime pay held invalid; city employee pay schedule ruled valid. Kucera v. City of Wheeling, 215 S.E.2d 216 (W. Va. 1975).
     Minimum Wage Legislation. Kentucky Municipal League v. Commonwealth, 530 S.W.2d 198 (Ky. 1975).
     Six minutes a violation. DeKalb Fire Fighters Local 1236 and City of DeKalb, FMCS File #76K03131 (Cyrol, Dec. 1975).

Back to list of subjects             Back to Legal Publications Menu