The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama has ruled that the City of Jasper did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act or retaliate against firefighters who filed suit in 2023. The suit alleged firefighters had not been properly paid overtime, were retaliated against when they complained, and that the city breached their contracts relating to compensation and leave policies.

The trial court did an excellent job of explaining the rather complicated facts and the nuanced ruling. Quoting from the decision:

• From approximately 1985 until 2022, firefighters for the City worked on a 19-day work period, meaning they worked 144 hours over a 19-day period.
• The City divided the firefighters into three groups, and each group rotated working a 24-hour shift before having forty-eight hours off.
• Each of the plaintiffs worked on this 24/48-hour rotation, which resulted in them generally working either 96 or 120 hours in a work period.
• This schedule inevitably resulted in one shift of firefighters working more than 144 hours, which entitled them to overtime compensation under the FLSA. 
• To prevent those firefighters from working in excess of 144 hours, the City gave them a “Kelly Day.”
• A “Kelly Day” is an additional day off “to reduce the total number of work hours down.”
• If a firefighter worked in excess of 144 hours, the City paid him or her overtime.
• The firefighters were salaried employees for the City. 
• Although the City used a 19-day work period, it used a 14-day pay period.
• The City calculated the firefighters’ biweekly payment by dividing their [annual] salaries by 26 pay periods.
• When a firefighter worked overtime, the City paid him or her overtime compensation.
• The City calculated a firefighter’s overtime rate by dividing the firefighters biweekly salary by 106, which is the average number of hours that a firefighter worked in the biweekly pay period (or a 53 hour weekly average), and then multiplied that number by 1.5.
• This case hinges in part on a discrepancy included on the firefighters’ checks under the 19-day work period.
• Because of the payroll software used by the City, the firefighters’ checks listed “80.00” under the heading “HOURS” and included a “PAY RATE” calculated by dividing the firefighter’s biweekly salary by eighty hours.
• It is undisputed that… the plaintiffs always worked more than 80-hours in a two-week span and averaged 106 hours.
• Nevertheless, the pay rate listed on the checks caused confusion for the firefighters, who believed that their overtime compensation rate should have been calculated by using that number (which is derived by dividing their salary by 80 hours) instead of the calculation used by the City (dividing their salary by the 106 average hours).
• Dante Fields, the Fire Chief for the City’s Fire Department, received complaints about the City’s pay system—mainly “seeing one figure on the check and being paid at a different rate” even though he says that all of the firefighters “knew that the rate on the check was incorrect” and that “it was common knowledge.”
• Because of confusion caused by the incorrect pay rate listed on the firefighters’ paychecks under the 19-day work period, Chief Fields asked the City to switch to a 28-day work period so it would be “more applicable for the fire department.”
• In September of 2022, the City passed a resolution in which it adopted a 28-day work period, meaning the firefighters worked 212 hours in a 28-day period.
• The plaintiffs sued the City and asserted their claims in three counts. In Count I, they asserted claims for unpaid overtime under the FLSA based on use of an incorrect hourly rate to calculate overtime pay.
• In Count II, they asserted claims of retaliation under the FLSA because they alleged their hourly pay rate decreased under the 28-day work period, which was adopted after the City received their complaints.
• And in Count III, they asserted a claim for breach of contract under the Jasper Civil Service Law for the City’s changes in compensation for paid leave.
• The evidence demonstrates that the City calculated the plaintiffs’ “regular rate” by dividing the individual plaintiff’s salary by the number of hours worked—not the undisputedly incorrect 80-hour figure listed on the checks.
• The City’s method of calculating overtime is consistent with FLSA overtime requirements.
• The plaintiffs’ arguments about differing pay rates for holidays, vacation, and sick leave are also unavailing.
• The FLSA specifically excludes compensation for such time from calculating an employee’s overtime compensation.
• [As for the firefighters’ retaliation claim:] The City argues that the plaintiffs cannot establish that they suffered an adverse employment action.
• The plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they “suffered adverse action” by the City.
• The evidence—including some of the plaintiffs’ own testimony—reveals that the City gave the firefighters a raise and did not decrease their salaries.
• The plaintiffs’ argument that the City lowered their hourly rate is based on the pay rate that was included on their paychecks under the 19-day work period.
• But as explained above, the pay rate listed on those checks was the result of the computer software used by the City, was incorrect, and was (appropriately) not relied upon by the City to calculate the plaintiffs’ overtime in the first place.
• There is no evidence that the City decreased the plaintiffs’ pay when it enacted the 28-day work period.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court went on to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claims. The firefighters are free to refile those claims in state court. Here is a copy of the decision: