Mullins v. City of New York
653 F.3d 104
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- NYPD sergeants sued for FLSA overtime for April 19, 2001 to present.
- District court applied pre- and post-2004 exemptions; held sergeants mostly non-exempt.
- DOL issued 2004 first responder regulation, treating police field work as non-management for exemption purposes.
- Secretary argued first responder regulation governs police field duties; deference under Auer-type standard if ambiguous.
- Court granted deference to Secretary, concluded sergeants’ primary duty is field law enforcement, not management, for Aug. 23, 2004–present; reversed partial summary judgment.
- Court also held Secretary’s interpretation informs April 19, 2001–Aug. 23, 2004 analysis; plaintiffs entitled to overtime for that period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Secretary’s interpretation of the first responder regulation is controlling. | Sergeants seek deference to Secretary’s view. | City opposes deference, argues plain text governs. | Yes, Secretary’s interpretation entitling deference applies. |
| Whether sergeants’ primary duty is management under the post-2004 regime. | Primary duty is field law enforcement, not management. | Supervision in the field constitutes management. | Not management; overtime owed Aug. 23, 2004–present. |
| Whether the April 19, 2001 to Aug. 23, 2004 period falls under the preceding rules. | Pre-2004 regulations should also yield non-exempt status. | District court properly applied old standard. | Secretary’s views inform, but court applies prior framework; overtime owed for this period. |
| Whether deference to the Secretary is warranted given agency authority. | Authority to define exemptions supports deference. | Deference only to reasonable interpretations; challenge to authority. | Deference warranted; interpretation not plainly erroneous. |
| What is the overall remedy given the interpretation? | Judgment in plaintiffs’ favor for overtime. | Partial grant of summary judgment to City reversed. | Remand with instructions to enter judgment for plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reich v. New York, 3 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.1993) (primary duty was investigation, not department administration)
- Talk Am., Inc. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011) (deference to agency interpretation when regulation ambiguous)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulation)
- Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (U.S. 2007) (agency interpretation of exemptions to overtime rules respected when reasonable)
- 69 Fed.Reg. 22129 (preamble), - (-) (preamble explaining first-responder context and intent; not a case, but cited as regulatory authority)