These county fire dispatchers and air paramedic employees worked standard hours of 9 X 24 hour shifts in a 27 day work period, or 216 hours. So, because they were mis-classified, overtime is due each workweek for each hour worked > 40.
Anyway, I know most of you are not running a city or fire protection operations and are not concerned with the above. But wait. There's more.
After the district court found in favor of the employees, the parties disagreed on how to calculate the overtime due. LA argued that it was entitled to offset overtime already paid, as it was paying employees for the hours worked > 204 in a 27-day work period.
For example, under the normal rule, if an employee worked 60 hours per week for 4 weeks, that would be 20 hours per week of overtime, times 4 weeks = 80 hours of overtime premium pay due. Under the exemption for fire protection, the overtime due for 240 hours worked in 28 days would be approximately 36 hours. (Assuming 28 instead of 27 days). So, big liability.
The city argued that it dutifully had been paying overtime for > 204 hours in the 27 day period Therefore, the city argued, it should be liable only for overtime hours not already paid for during that same 27-day period. Meaning, the overtime paid during the entire work period would be offset against what was still owing. The city argued in the alternative it should be given an offset for all overtime paid in the three year period of the lawsuit, with the amount paid credited against the total overtime owed.
No, said the Ninth Circuit. The employer would be allowed to credit / offset overtime only for the workweek in which the overtime was paid.
Under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207(h)(2), an employer may credit overtime payments already made to employees against overtime payments owed to them under the FLSA. The statute, however, does not specify the method to be used to calculate these overtime payments. The statute simply states that “[e]xtra compensation . . . shall be creditable toward overtime compensation payable pursuant to this section.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(h)(2).* * *
The district court correctly applied a week-by-week approach. Section 207(a) sets forth the basic overtime standard, set at forty hours in a seven-day workweek and time and one-half for overtime. To determine the overtime owed for each workweek, the total hours worked over forty is multiplied by one and one-half the regular rate. Then, under § 207(h), the overtime already paid by the employer is determined and credited against the overtime owed. While § 207(h) does not state whether credits must be determined on a workweek basis, it must still be read within the context of the overtime due under § 207(a), which is calculated on a workweek basis. Under this reading, compensation already paid for work done within one workweek should not be transferrable and offset against overtime due in another workweek. This makes sense because Plaintiffs are owed what they should have been paid had the City obeyed the law.This decision adds to a split in the circuit courts. The Supreme Court eventually may decide this issue. Until then, in the Ninth Circuit, employers will not be able to offset overtime already paid, except on a work week by workweek basis.
Although this is an FLSA case, California wage-hour laws track the FLSA unless there's a reason in the California law to depart from federal law. In this instance, California courts are likely to follow the FLSA on this point, because it is the calculation method that is most generous to employees.
This case is Haro v. City of Los Angeles and the opinion is here.
