Tina Haro v. City of Los Angeles
745 F.3d 1249
9th Cir.2014Background
- Dispatchers and aeromedical technicians for the City of Los Angeles Fire Department were classified as “fire protection” under the FLSA and denied standard overtime; they argue they are not engaged in fire protection and thus entitled to standard overtime.
- FLSA § 207(k) governs the exemption; § 203(y) defines employee in fire protection and requires fire protection duties and authority.
- Plaintiffs rely on Cleveland v. City of Los Angeles to argue dual-trained paramedics are not engaged in fire protection and thus deserve standard overtime.
- City previously litigated related FLSA questions in Acrich and Cleveland, affecting who is considered fire protection workers and resulting in differing overtime treatments.
- District court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the exemption issue, held the statute of limitations to be three years due to willfulness, awarded liquidated damages, and approved a week-by-week offset for calculating back pay.
- Court affirms that dispatchers and aeromedical technicians are not engaged in fire protection; holds willful violation justifies three-year limitations, liquidated damages, and week-by-week offsets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dispatchers and aeromedical technicians are engaged in fire protection under §207(k) and §203(y). | Plaintiffs (Cleveland line) are not engaged in fire protection. | City contends they are engaged in fire protection. | Not engaged; standard overtime applies. |
| Whether the City acted willfully, warranting a three-year statute of limitations. | City willfully violated the FLSA. | No willful violation. | Willful; three-year limitations. |
| Whether liquidated damages are warranted under §216(b). | Liquidated damages should be awarded due to willfulness. | Liquidated damages may be inappropriate if good faith shown. | Affirmed; liquidated damages proper. |
| How offsets for previously-paid overtime should be calculated. | Offsets must be week-by-week. | Offsets could be computed cumulatively or by other periods. | Week-by-week offset required. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1988) (willfulness standard for FLSA limitations)
- Chao v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2003) (liquidated damages and good faith/reasonableness standards)
- Howard v. City of Springfield, 274 F.3d 1141 (7th Cir. 2001) (week-by-week offset supportive of prompt payment rule)
- Herman v. Fabri-Centers of America, Inc., 308 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2002) (support for week-by-week offset under 207(h))
- Cleveland v. City of Los Angeles, 420 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (dual-trained paramedics not engaged in fire protection; guidance for §203(y))