A federal district court in Arizona has dismissed an overtime lawsuit brought by ten current and former members of the Gilbert Fire Department, concluding that the firefighters failed to adequately plead an overtime claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In doing so, the court stopped short of ruling on whether the firefighters qualify for the §207(k). Instead, the case was dismissed on pleading grounds, and the firefighters were granted leave to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit was filed by firefighters Jeremy Armitage, Justin Ashton, Brent Bandura, Jacob Fletcher, Justin Hawley, Leo Hess, Matthew Kennedy, Robert Martinez, Shawn Willhite, and Maximilian Wulf as a collective action under the FLSA.

According to the complaint, in 2020 the Gilbert Town Council authorized the Gilbert Fire Department to become the community’s primary ambulance service provider. As a result, the department expanded its ambulance operations, initially hiring civilian personnel but increasingly staffing ambulance shifts with sworn firefighters.

The firefighters alleged that nearly all of the emergency calls they respond to are medical in nature and that they “rarely, if ever, engage in fire protection activities.” They further alleged that when assigned to ambulance shifts they “have no responsibility to engage in fire protection activities.”

Those allegations formed the basis of their claim that the Town of Gilbert improperly classified them under the FLSA’s §207(k) partial overtime exemption for employees engaged in fire protection activities. Under that exemption, public employers may adopt an alternative work period of between 7 and 28 days, and pay straight time until firefighters exceed the applicable statutory threshold between 53 and 212 hours (depending on the work period selected) rather than the standard forty-hour workweek. The plaintiffs contended that because they allegedly did not engage in, and had no responsibility to engage in, fire protection activities while assigned to ambulance duty, the exemption should not apply to those shifts.

The Town moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds. First, it argued that the firefighters had failed to plead sufficient facts showing that they were entitled to overtime under the FLSA. Second, it argued that the allegations demonstrated the firefighters remained employees engaged in fire protection activities and therefore fell within the §207(k) exemption.

The court addressed only the first argument.

Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that an employee seeking unpaid overtime under the FLSA must allege facts showing that he or she worked more than forty hours during at least one workweek without receiving the overtime compensation required by law. While employees are not required to calculate their unpaid overtime “with mathematical precision,” they must provide sufficient factual allegations to make the claim plausible.

The firefighters alleged that the Town improperly applied the §207(k) exemption during nearly every work period between 2022 and 2024 and asserted they were owed overtime for virtually every work period that did not include vacation, sick leave, or a holiday. The court concluded, however, that those allegations did not identify any workweek in which a plaintiff actually worked more than forty hours without receiving the overtime compensation required under the FLSA.

The firefighters argued that the detailed payroll and scheduling records necessary to calculate their damages were in the Town’s possession. The court acknowledged that employees are not expected to plead overtime claims with “mathematical precision” because employers generally control those records. Nevertheless, the court held that the complaint still had to allege facts plausibly showing that the plaintiffs worked more than forty hours in at least one workweek without proper overtime compensation.

Because the complaint failed to satisfy that pleading requirement, the court declined to address the parties’ dispute over the §207(k) exemption. The court stated:

“Because the Amended Complaint does not satisfy the pleading standard, the Court need not address the parties’ arguments regarding the § 207(k) exemption.”

The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice and granted the firefighters leave to amend their pleading.

As a result, the decision does not determine whether the firefighters do or do not qualify for the §207(k) exemption. That question remains unresolved. Before the court reaches that issue, however, the firefighters must first file an amended complaint alleging sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for unpaid overtime under the FLSA.

Here is our upcoming lineup of FLSA classes:

Advanced FLSA: Calculating Regular Rate for Firefighters and other First Responders

Webinar – July 15, 2026  1:00PM Eastern Information / Register On-Line

FLSA Bootcamp for Volunteer and Combination Fire Departments

Webinar – August 12, 2026  1:00PM Eastern Information / Register On-Line

Advanced FLSA: Firefighter Work Schedules for the 21st Century

Webinar – August 20, 2026  1:00PM Eastern Information / Register On-Line

Advanced FLSA: Executive Exemption: Fire Officers and Overtime

Webinar – September 16, 2026  1:00PM Eastern Information / Register On-Line

Fair Labor Standards Act for Fire Departments

October 13-15, 2026 Kansas City, Kansas Information/Register On-Line