Jeffrey Allen v. City of Chicago
865 F.3d 936
7th Cir.2017Background
- Fifty-two current/former Chicago PD Organized Crime Bureau officers sued under the FLSA claiming they were not paid overtime for off-duty work performed on department-issued BlackBerrys.
- Officers had an established overtime-claim procedure: short "time due" slips submitted to supervisors and processed by payroll; some officers used it and received pay for BlackBerry work, many did not submit slips for such work.
- The Department issued General Orders (2010 and 2013) and a Compliance Statement stating officers "will not be compensated" for off-duty device use except for call-backs or authorized overtime; language and implementation were inconsistent and confusing.
- District court (bench trial) found some BlackBerry activity was compensable but held plaintiffs failed to prove the Bureau actually or constructively knew officers were underreporting or that the Bureau discouraged reporting in practice.
- Plaintiffs appealed arguing the Bureau had actual or constructive knowledge and maintained (written or unwritten) policies discouraging reporting; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, deferring to the district court’s factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs performed compensable off-duty work | They did perform compensable BlackBerry work outside scheduled shifts | Bureau did not dispute some work was compensable but contested liability | Court: Some BlackBerry work was compensable (plaintiffs proved this) |
| Whether Bureau had actual or constructive knowledge that officers were not reporting/payments were withheld | Bureau supervisors knew officers worked off-duty and thus should have known they weren’t being paid | Bureau had reporting procedures and no reason to know employees intentionally failed to use them; supervisors did not know slips were missing | Court: Bureau lacked actual or constructive knowledge; plaintiffs did not prove employer should have known via reasonable diligence |
| Whether Bureau maintained an unwritten policy or practice discouraging reporting of BlackBerry overtime | Bureau had a culture and/or unwritten policy discouraging slips for BlackBerry work | No evidence of directives, discipline, or consistent supervisor practice preventing slips; some officers were paid when they submitted slips | Court: No persuasive evidence of an unwritten policy or practice deterring reporting |
| Whether the Department’s written General Orders made the Bureau liable | Orders and Compliance Statement state officers "will not be compensated," which contradicts FLSA and discouraged reporting | Orders were ambiguous, labeled "guidelines," inconsistently understood and not enforced to deny pay | Court: The orders’ poor phrasing is troubling but district court reasonably found they had no practical effect on reporting; not enough to establish liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., 664 F.3d 169 (7th Cir.) (employer cannot "sit back and accept" work and avoid payment)
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp., 699 F.3d 869 (6th Cir.) (reasonable reporting process can shield employer when employee fails to follow it)
- Gaines v. K-Five Construction Corp., 742 F.3d 256 (7th Cir.) (failure to use employer’s time-reporting form precludes inference employer knew of overtime)
- Forrester v. Roth’s I.G.A. Foodliner, Inc., 646 F.2d 413 (9th Cir.) (employee’s deliberate prevention of employer’s knowledge negates employer liability)
- Hertz v. Woodbury County, 566 F.3d 775 (8th Cir.) (constructive knowledge requires that employer should have known through reasonable diligence)