San Leandro Ca. Dec. 18, 2007
A federal judge has ruled in favor of San Leandro police officers seeking overtime pay for “donning and doffing” uniforms and safety gear in a case that is strikingly similar to one pending against the city of San Luis Obispo.
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who sits on the U.S. District Court Northern District in San Francisco, wrote in her Dec. 7 summary judgment that the uniform and safety gear are a police officer’s “survival suit” and integral to the job.
She wrote in the San Leandro case that time spent donning and doffing such gear requires compensation under the Federal Labor Standards Act.
The decision is relevant to a similar case in U.S. District Court Central District in Los Angeles titled Charles Riedel v. city of San Luis Obispo. It was originally called Dale Strobridge v. city of San Luis Obispo, but the name was changed to feature Officer Charles Riedel as the lead plaintiff.
The Riedel case is at an earlier step in the federal judicial process. It is a suit paid for by the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association, which is seeking similar donning-and-doffing compensation.
The Los Angeles court on Dec. 7 certified the Riedel case as a class-action suit, meaning the resulting decision will apply to all officers who signed onto the San Luis Obispo case prior to mid-September.
A summary judgment in the Riedel case is expected as early as February or March, according to the attorneys involved. A trial is scheduled to start in May, although jury trials are sometimes delayed because one of the parties involved often appeals.
U.S. district courts in California are low-level federal magistrates, and the rulings essentially apply only to cases at hand. Such decisions can be appealed.
Across California, U.S. district courts have heard donning- and-doffing cases against the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Richmond and others.
Resulting summary judgments have, in turn, come to markedly different conclusions. Patel’s ruling was a near total victory for police. She said the uniform and the safety gear convey force and keep the officer safe.
But a ruling in U.S. District Court Southern District involving San Diego officers was a near total victory for that city.
The Richmond case was a partial victory for officers, with a different judge who sits on Patel’s court ruling that officers could be compensated for donning and doffing safety gear but not uniforms.
The attorneys involved in the San Luis Obispo case expect the issue to eventually be decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It depends on what the city decides to do in San Leandro, and it depends on what the officers decide to do in San Diego,” said Alison Berry Wilkinson, the attorney representing officers in Richmond, San Leandro and San Luis Obispo.
She said some communities and officers could decide to negotiate the question during union contract talks rather than pursue it in court.
Wilkinson has argued that it takes about 30 minutes total to don and doff the required uniform and gear. The gear can include a belt, handgun, handcuffs and other security equipment.
In Berkeley, officers are paid an extra 20 minutes to don and doff. The CHP recently decided to pay its officers a 3.5 percent premium for the tasks.
Peter Brown represents the city of San Luis Obispo in the federal case. He has argued that the time spent dressing in uniform and gear is extremely minimal, nowhere near 30 minutes a day.
“All of these cases are all over the map,” Brown said of the lower federal court decisions. “The matter itself won’t get decided until the 9th Circuit takes it up.”
Such donning-and-doffing cases have become increasingly common following a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that let stand a 9th Circuit decision stating meat cutters should be compensated for time spent donning and doffing required safety gear.
email us...adminassist@privateofficer.com
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who sits on the U.S. District Court Northern District in San Francisco, wrote in her Dec. 7 summary judgment that the uniform and safety gear are a police officer’s “survival suit” and integral to the job.
She wrote in the San Leandro case that time spent donning and doffing such gear requires compensation under the Federal Labor Standards Act.
The decision is relevant to a similar case in U.S. District Court Central District in Los Angeles titled Charles Riedel v. city of San Luis Obispo. It was originally called Dale Strobridge v. city of San Luis Obispo, but the name was changed to feature Officer Charles Riedel as the lead plaintiff.
The Riedel case is at an earlier step in the federal judicial process. It is a suit paid for by the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association, which is seeking similar donning-and-doffing compensation.
The Los Angeles court on Dec. 7 certified the Riedel case as a class-action suit, meaning the resulting decision will apply to all officers who signed onto the San Luis Obispo case prior to mid-September.
A summary judgment in the Riedel case is expected as early as February or March, according to the attorneys involved. A trial is scheduled to start in May, although jury trials are sometimes delayed because one of the parties involved often appeals.
U.S. district courts in California are low-level federal magistrates, and the rulings essentially apply only to cases at hand. Such decisions can be appealed.
Across California, U.S. district courts have heard donning- and-doffing cases against the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles, Richmond and others.
Resulting summary judgments have, in turn, come to markedly different conclusions. Patel’s ruling was a near total victory for police. She said the uniform and the safety gear convey force and keep the officer safe.
But a ruling in U.S. District Court Southern District involving San Diego officers was a near total victory for that city.
The Richmond case was a partial victory for officers, with a different judge who sits on Patel’s court ruling that officers could be compensated for donning and doffing safety gear but not uniforms.
The attorneys involved in the San Luis Obispo case expect the issue to eventually be decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It depends on what the city decides to do in San Leandro, and it depends on what the officers decide to do in San Diego,” said Alison Berry Wilkinson, the attorney representing officers in Richmond, San Leandro and San Luis Obispo.
She said some communities and officers could decide to negotiate the question during union contract talks rather than pursue it in court.
Wilkinson has argued that it takes about 30 minutes total to don and doff the required uniform and gear. The gear can include a belt, handgun, handcuffs and other security equipment.
In Berkeley, officers are paid an extra 20 minutes to don and doff. The CHP recently decided to pay its officers a 3.5 percent premium for the tasks.
Peter Brown represents the city of San Luis Obispo in the federal case. He has argued that the time spent dressing in uniform and gear is extremely minimal, nowhere near 30 minutes a day.
“All of these cases are all over the map,” Brown said of the lower federal court decisions. “The matter itself won’t get decided until the 9th Circuit takes it up.”
Such donning-and-doffing cases have become increasingly common following a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that let stand a 9th Circuit decision stating meat cutters should be compensated for time spent donning and doffing required safety gear.
email us...adminassist@privateofficer.com
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment