Gotay-Figueroa et al v. Municipality et al.
Case Date: 10/16/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1650
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1650 ANDRES GOTAY-FIGUEROA, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________ Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________ and Lynch, Circuit Judge. _____________ ____________________ Frederic Chardon Dubos on brief for appellants. ______________________ Jose Angel Rey on brief for appellees. ______________ ____________________ October 14, 1997 ____________________ Per Curiam. Appellants are present or former city ___________ police officers for the Municipality of San Juan. They claim their employer has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), in two respects: 1) by failing to pay overtime as required by subsection 207(a), even though they worked more than 40 hours per week; and 2) by giving them compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 35 or 40 hours per week,1 in 1 violation of subsection 207(o). Both arguments fail for the same reason. Appellants do not become eligible for payment of overtime wages until they have worked 43 hours per week; see 29 U.S.C. 207(k) and 29 ___ C.F.R. 553.230(b) & (c). The rule applies to law enforcement personnel who have a seven to 28 day "work period." Their argument that this special rule for law enforcement officers does not apply to them, since they never work seven consecutive days, is specious. A "work period" ___________ is not a "duty cycle." Instead, it is a recurring period of work, from seven to 28 days, which the employer sets up ahead of time for determining whether an employee is eligible for ____________________ 1Appellants seem to claim they were entitled to overtime 1 pay for hours worked in excess of 35 per week; apparently local law is more generous than federal law with regard to municipal employees; see Ordinance No. 58, Municipality of ___ San Juan, June 28, 1985. Whether appellants allege they were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA after working 35 hours or 40 hours, they still fail to allege a violation of the FLSA. See text infra. ___ _____ -2- overtime pay in any given period. 29 C.F.R. 553.224(a). Appellants have not alleged they were required to work more than 43 hours in a work period without additional compensation, so they have failed to allege or show facts to support their claims. Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. _________ -3- |