754 F.3d 177
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Eightyeight current/former Teaneck police officers claim FLSA overtime, muster time, and donning/doffing are compensable
- District Court granted Teaneck summary judgment on all claims
- Agreement covers 7- or 9-day work periods averaging 39.25 hours/week
- Overtime exemptions under § 207(k) potentially apply to law enforcement
- Muster time, donning/doffing are not clearly compensable under the FLSA or CBA
- Court reviews district court’s summary judgment de novo and interprets FLSA exemptions narrowly
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Teaneck validly established a § 207(k) work period | Teaneck did not intend to adopt § 207(k) exemption | Only factual criteria matter; intent not required | Teaneck established a valid § 207(k) work period |
| Whether plaintiffs proved overtime damages under the FLSA | Damages supported by an officer-driven spreadsheet | Records show no calculable overtime; insufficient proof | Summary judgment for Teaneck; damages not proven |
| Whether muster time is compensated as part of base salary | Muster time should be separately compensated | Muster time is included in base salary per contract | Muster time compensation upheld as part of the salary |
| Whether donning/doffing is excluded under § 203(o) | Donning/doffing should be compensated under FLSA | Custom/practice excludes donning/doffing; applies § 203(o) | Exclusion under § 203(o) applies; donning/doffing not compensable |
| Whether § 203(o) forecloses compensation for donning/doffing | § 203(o) does not apply or requires different analysis | Custom/practice governs exclusion under CBA | Custom/practice shows donning/doffing time is non-compensable |
Key Cases Cited
- Calvao v. Town of Framingham, 599 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2010) (limits of § 207(k) exemptions and factual establishment required)
- O’Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003) (agency work period exemption considerations under § 207(k))
- Lawrence v. City of Philadelphia, 527 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2008) (interpretation of § 207(k) in public safety agencies)
- Turner v. City of Philadelphia, 262 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2001) (Turner—custom/practice under a CBA can exclude change time)
- Spradling v. City of Tulsa, 95 F.3d 1492 (10th Cir. 1996) (employer may establish § 207(k) work period without explicit intent)
- Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (define clothes for § 203(o); majority-time analysis guidance)