FLSA

The Sixth Circuit recently issued a major decision regarding the use of compensatory time. This victory arose from one of former IUPA General Counsel Mike Leibig's last FLSA cases prior to his passing, and is a legacy to his vigorous battle to improve the pay of police officers.

In Beck v. Cleveland, No. 02-3669, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the City could not deny a compensatory time request solely because the request would cause the City to spend money on overtime to fill the slot. (This case is available at http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0390p-06.pdf or I can email a copy on request.)

In Beck, the City used a common tactic in scheduling compensatory time: the City would refuse an officer's request for compensatory time if the request would reduce the staffing below minimum staffing levels, even if the City could have called in a replacement officer using overtime. The City argued that it could refuse comp time requests because the use of overtime would "unduly disrupt" the police department.

In ruling against the City, the Court emphatically affirmed the right of police officers to use compensatory time: "The Police Officers' compensatory leave requests must be granted absent 'clear and affirmative evidence' of an undue disruption of the City's provision of police services for its citizens."

The Court rejected the City's argument that the financial burden of overtime would "unduly disrupt the operation" of the police department. Instead, the Court "conclude[d] that [the] 'unduly disruptive' limitation was intended to apply to actual governmental operations, not the fiscal impact of compensatory leave." Thus, the City must prove that "the effects of the compensatory leave requests upon actual police operations" are unduly disruptive.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the three Supreme Court cases litigated by IUPA. In particular, the Beck Court cited Christensen to support its reliance on Department of Labor regulations and opinions. One such opinion states that "The fact that overtime may be required of one employee to permit another employee to use compensatory time off would not be a sufficient reason for an employer to claim that the compensatory time off request is unduly disruptive."

The Court did note that there may be financial impacts of compensatory time use that would be "unduly disruptive." However, "to rely upon the financial impact of paying overtime to substitute officers to justify denial of compensatory leave under Section 207(o)(5), the public employer must present clear proof of disruption of services." Normally this would require the use of expert testimony that the financial impacts would unduly disrupt police services, not just the police department budget.

This case should greatly strengthen officers right to use compensatory time, and should reduce the ability of police departments to use overtime as an excuse to deny comp time requests except in a true financial crisis.

Since these are case summaries, and case law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, please consult with your local attorney before relying on these summaries.

Aaron Nisenson
General Counsel
I.U.P.A.