Pilot v. City of Yonkers

Background

Roy Pilot was a Yonkers police officer from 2002 until his retirement on June 13, 2019. From approximately November 2007 through June 2019, he served in the police department’s canine unit. During the relevant period, he worked full-time with a police dog named Iceman and took the dog home during non-working hours, where he provided care including walking, grooming, and feeding.

Pilot worked a rotating 25-day schedule. During the relevant period, he worked between 136 and 245 hours in each 25-day work period. He was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Police Benevolent Association. A 1992 memorandum of understanding provided for $8 per hour for directed off-duty canine-care and training activities. In practice, Pilot received $8 per day for canine maintenance and one hour of overtime pay for transporting the dog to and from home and work on days he worked.

Pilot brought a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which generally requires overtime pay at one-and-a-half times the regular rate for work beyond the statutory limit. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide legal issues without a trial when no genuine dispute of material fact requires one.

Section 207(g)(2) exception

The defendants argued that the City’s payment system qualified for an exception under Section 207(g)(2). That provision can allow an employer to use different overtime calculations when an employee performs two or more kinds of work at different bona fide hourly or piece rates, the arrangement was agreed to in advance, and overtime compensation was calculated at no less than one-and-a-half times the applicable rate.

The court held that the defendants failed to prove the required fourth element. The City’s documents were inconsistent about whether canine-care compensation was $8 per hour or $8 per day, and the payroll records did not state how much time the payment covered. The head of the police department’s fiscal services also testified that the City had no method for determining the specific breakdown or calculating the correct rate. The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the overtime claim under Section 207(g)(2).

Section 207(k) law-enforcement exemption

The court granted the defendants’ motion under Section 207(k), which provides a special overtime threshold for qualifying public-agency law-enforcement employees. For employees working a qualifying period of at least seven but fewer than 28 days, overtime begins after the statutory number of hours for that period. Under the applicable regulation, the threshold for a 25-day period was 153 hours, rather than 40 hours in a seven-day period.

The record showed that Pilot was a law-enforcement employee working an established, regularly recurring 25-day schedule. The court rejected Pilot’s arguments that the City had to formally adopt the exemption or pay him under it during the relevant period before relying on it. The court ruled that the City could calculate any overtime under Section 207(k), and that it could not be liable for overtime violations under the ordinary Section 207(a) rule when the Section 207(k) conditions applied. The FLSA required overtime compensation for hours exceeding 153 in a 25-day cycle.

Credit for prior overtime payments

The court also granted the defendants’ motion under Section 207(h). It held that the City could credit certain contractually required overtime payments against any overtime compensation owed under the FLSA. The collective bargaining agreement required overtime pay for hours exceeding 128 in a pay period, while the Section 207(k) threshold was 153 hours in the relevant 25-day periods. The City could offset qualifying premium payments made for hours between those thresholds against any FLSA overtime obligation.

Liquidated damages, willfulness, and attorney’s fees

The court denied both parties’ motions concerning liquidated damages, whether the alleged violation was willful, and attorney’s fees. It found those issues premature because liability and the amount of any unpaid overtime had not yet been determined after applying Sections 207(k) and 207(h).

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, it denied the defendants’ motion concerning the Section 207(g)(2) exception, granted their motion concerning the Section 207(k) partial exemption, and granted their motion concerning the Section 207(h) credit. It denied Pilot’s motion concerning liability. It denied both parties’ motions concerning liquidated damages, willfulness, and attorney’s fees as premature.

The court also dismissed all claims against the City of Yonkers Police Department because it was not a suable entity, and directed the Clerk to terminate the Police Department as a defendant. The opinion did not finally determine whether Pilot was owed overtime damages.