IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

FILED 

No. 13-1261 

October 30, 2014 

released at 3:00 p.m. 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA September 2014 Term 

MYRON BOGGESS and WILLIAM GILL, et al.
 

Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners
 

v. 

CITY OF CHARLESTON, A WEST VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL
 

CORPORATION; MATTHEW P. JACKSON, ERIC E. KINDER,
 

AND VICTOR E. SIGMON, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS
 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE FIREMEN’S CIVIL SERVICE
 

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHARLESTON
 

Defendants Below, Respondents
 

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
 

The Honorable James C. Stucky, Judge
 

Civil Action No. 12-Misc-119
 

AFFIRMED
 

Submitted: October 14, 2014 

Filed: October 30, 2014 

Thomas P. Maroney, Esq. Thomas V. Flaherty, Esq. 

Patrick K. Maroney, Esq. Caleb P. Knight, Esq. 

Maroney, Williams, Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso, PLLC 

Weaver & Pancake, PLLC Charleston, West Virginia 

Charleston, West Virginia Counsel for Respondent City 

Counsel for Petitioners 

Arden J. Curry, II, Esq. 

David K. Schwirian 
 

 

 

 

Pauley Curry, PLLC 

Charleston, West Virginia 

Counsel for Respondent Commission 

and Commissioners, individually 

JUSTICE WORKMAN delivered the Opinion of the Court 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
 

1. “A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syl. 

Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). 

2. “‘“A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear 

that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not 

desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & Surety 

Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).’ 

Syllabus Point 1, Andrick v. Town of Buckhannon, 187 W.Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (1992).” 

Syl. Pt. 1, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995). 

3. “Summary judgment is appropriate if, from the totality of the evidence 

presented, the record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, 

such as where the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential 

element of the case that it has the burden to prove.” Syl. Pt. 2, Williams v. Precision Coil, 

Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995). 

4. In the absence of a contractual obligation providing otherwise, a public 

employer is permitted to unilaterally modify a longstanding policy affecting the rights of 

employees where notice is provided to such employees and where the modification of policy 

does not retroactively impair previously earned and vested rights, such as pension benefits. 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Workman, Justice: 

This matter is before the Court upon an appeal by Myron Boggess and William 

Gill, individually and in their capacities as representatives of 162 firefighters (hereinafter 

“the petitioners”) from an October 7, 2013, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County 

granting summary judgment to the City of Charleston (hereinafter “the City”) and a July 9, 

2013, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County dismissing the Fireman’s Civil Service 

Commission for the City of Charleston (hereinafter “the Commission”). The petitioners 

challenge the City’s method of calculating overtime wages and contend that the circuit court 

erred in granting summary judgment to the City and dismissing the Commission. Upon 

thorough review of the arguments, record, and applicable precedent, this Court affirms the 

orders of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. 

I. Factual and Procedural History 

The petitioners are individuals employed by the City as firefighters. The City 

establishes an annual salary for its firefighters, paid in twenty-six equal installments per year. 

Overtime compensation is determined by dividing the annual salary by a certain number of 

hours worked to establish a baseline regular hourly rate of pay.1 Overtime is then paid at one 

1

This calculation is necessaryto convert an annual salaryinto a baseline regular hourly 

rate to determine a firefighter’s applicable overtime rate. Accurate calculation of the baseline 

regular hourly rate is essential to the determination of what one and one-half times that 

(continued...) 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and one-half times the regular hourly rate after the firefighters work beyond the regular 

hours. “Kelly days” were also established in 1991.2 In 1994 and 1997, the City reduced the 

number of hours per week that the firefighters would work before overtime was required to 

be paid.3 

The divisor used in the baseline hourly rate calculation is the primary matter 

of controversy in this case. From 1991 until 2011, the City calculated its firefighters’ 

baseline hourly rates in a manner consistent with a formula utilized in Aaron v. City of 

Wichita, 797 F. Supp. 898 (D. Kan. 1992) (hereinafter “Aaron I”), subtracting Kelly days and 

vacation days from the total number of hours worked annually. In 2011, however, 

Charleston City Manager David D. Molgaard reviewed the City’s methodology for 

calculating the baseline hourlyrate and determined that it was incorrect and had actually been 

compensating the firefighters at a higher overtime rate than required. Mr. Molgaard further 

determined that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had rejected the 

1

(...continued) 

regular hourly rate is for purposes of paying overtime wages. 

2

A Kelly day is essentially an additional scheduled period of time off. It is typically 

arranged through a rotating system providing periodic time off. The term “Kelly day” 

originated in Chicago in 1936 when then Mayor Edward Kelly gave firefighters a day off for 

every seven days on duty. A common Kelly arrangement is a three-platoon system that 

works a “24 on/48 off” rotation with a Kelly day every seventh shift. 

3

According to the City, from 1991 to 1995, firefighters received overtime pay after 

working 51.7 hours per week. From 1995 to 1996, they received overtime pay after working 

50.4 hours per week. And from 1997 to the present, they receive overtime pay after working 

49 hours per week. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

formula being utilized in Aaron I through its decision in Aaron v. City of Witchita, 54 F.3d 

652 (10th Cir. 1995) (hereinafter “Aaron II”). The Tenth Circuit held in Aaron II that the 

proper hourly rate is determined by dividing the salary by the total number of hours the 

annual salary was intended to compensate, without deducting vacation days and Kelly days. 

54 F.3d at 656. 

Concluding that its previous formula had inappropriately inflated the 

calculation of the baseline regular hourly rate and had resulted in overpayment of 

approximately $1.4 million in wages not required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act 

(hereinafter “FLSA”), 29 United States Code §§ 201 to 219 (2006), the City amended its 

mathematical formula by resolution dated November 7, 2011. The City provided the 

firefighters with notice of the alteration. The resolution modifies the method of calculating 

overtime compensation and indicates that the City “adopted the Section 207(k) exemption 

under the [FLSA] and provided that the City would henceforth pay its firefighters premium 

compensation for any unscheduled time worked in excess of 212 hours within a 28 day 

period.” See 29 U.S.C. § 207(k). 

Under the modified formula, the baseline regular hourly rate is calculated by 

dividing the annual salary by 2548, the number of hours each firefighter is to work under the 

FLSA guidelines prior to what is considered overtime, with anything over forty-nine hours 

per week deemed as overtime. This modified method of calculation has not reduced the 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

firefighters’ annual salaries; it has only altered the mathematical calculation by which the 

baseline regular hourly rate of pay is determined.4 Due to the effect upon overtime 

calculation, the petitioners initiated legal action on November 23, 2011, by filing a petition 

with the Commission seeking to reinstate the prior baseline regular hourly rate calculation. 

In that action, the petitioners alleged that the City’s November 7, 2011, resolution constituted 

an improper unilateral change to the method of calculation and that such change resulted in 

a reduction of overtime pay. 

On January 26, 2012, the Commission addressed the issue of whether it had 

jurisdiction to hear the petitioners’ claims, pursuant to West Virginia Code §§ 8-15-11, -25 

(2012), dealing with civil service for paid fire departments. According to those provisions, 

the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to certain defined areas, and it is authorized to hear 

and rule upon allegations involving the removal, discharge, suspension, or reduction in rank 

or pay of a firefighter. Because the petitioners had not been the subject of disciplinary 

action, the Commission found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitioners’ claims. 

A. City’s Request for Declaratory Judgment in Federal Court 

4

It is imperative to note that the petitioners do not contend that the City refused to pay 

one and one-half times the baseline regular hourly rate as overtime compensation; rather, 

they contend that such rate is now calculated in a manner which differs from the previous 

method, leading to the one and one-half time figure being lower than the prior calculation 

using lower divisors. In other words, the lower the divisor, the higher the resulting overtime 

pay. 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On February 2, 2012, the City filed a Request for Declaratory Judgment and 

Relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The 

City asserted that an actual controversy had arisen under the FLSA regarding the proper 

methodology for calculating hourly and overtime wages for the petitioners. The City 

requested declaratory judgment and relief regarding the legality of its methodology under the 

FLSA. 

On May 3, 2012, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss,. The federal court 

determined that there was no controversy under the FLSA and therefore dismissed the 

declaratory judgment action, by order dated September 7, 2012. The court reasoned as 

follows: 

[I]f the firefighters believed that the new methodology adopted 

by the City that took effect in 2012 violated the FLSA, they 

could have brought a claim in federal court. They did not do so; 

rather, they brought a claim in State court, alleging only 

violations of State law and [Firemen’s Civil Service] 

Commission rules, and nowhere have the firefighters even 

suggested that the new methodology violates the FLSA. Thus, 

there is no controversy as to whether the new methodology 

satisfies the requirements of the FLSA. 

B. Petitioners’ Request for Writ of Mandamus Against the Commission and
 

Petitioners’ Civil Action Against the City
 

On February 24, 2012, the petitioners filed a Complaint and Petition for Writ 

of Mandamus in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. The petitioners alleged that the City 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

should not be permitted to unilaterally alter its method of calculating overtime pay and 

asserted that the Commission should be compelled to assume jurisdiction in this matter and 

hold a full evidentiary hearing.5 

In response, the Commission filed a motion to dismiss, and the circuit court 

heard arguments regarding the that motion on April 22, 2013. The court found that this 

Court’s decision in Darlington v. Magnum, 192 W.Va. 112, 450 S.E.2d 809 (1994), 

compelled the conclusion that the Commission lacked jurisdiction.6 Thus, the circuit court 

held, by order dated July 9, 2013, that the Commission properly concluded that it lacked 

jurisdiction to hear the petitioners’ claims. 

The petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment on May 28, 2013, 

alleging that the City violated its contractual obligations and the FLSA by unilaterally 

altering the method of calculating overtime pay. The City agreed that this matter was 

suitable for summary judgment and, on June 14, 2013, converted its previously-filed motion 

to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. On June 26, 2013, the parties argued their 

respective motions for summary judgment before the circuit court. The petitioners asked the 

5

As of May 22, 2012, all proceedings in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County were 

stayed pending resolution of the matters before the federal court. That stay was lifted after 

the federal court dismissed the declaratory judgment action by the City. 

6

The Darlington case will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this 

opinion. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

circuit court to take judicial notice of certain FLSA statutes that were supportive of their 

motion. The City objected on the grounds that the petitioners were estopped from litigating 

alleged violations of the FLSA because they had sought and obtained dismissal of the City’s 

declaratory judgment action in federal court on the basis that no FLSA violations had 

occurred.7 

On October 7, 2013, the circuit court granted the City’s motion for summary 

judgment. The petitioners now appeal both the July 9, 2013, dismissal order and the October 

7, 2013, summary judgment order to this Court. 

II. Standard of Review 

This Court has consistentlyexplained that “[a] circuit court’s entryof summary 

judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 

(1994). Summary judgment is mandated when the record demonstrates that no genuine 

issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

See Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Props. Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692, 474 S.E.2d 872 

(1996). 

As this Court explained in syllabus points one and two of Williams v. Precision 

7

The circuit court did not rule on the City’s claim of estoppel and proceeded to an 

adjudication on the merits. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995), 

“ ‘A motion for summary judgment should be granted 

only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be 

tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify 

the application of the law.’ Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & 

Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 

160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).” Syllabus Point 1, Andrick v. Town 

of Buckhannon, 187 W.Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (1992). 

Summary judgment is appropriate if, from the totality 

of the evidence presented, the record could not lead a rational 

trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, such as where the 

nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an 

essential element of the case that it has the burden to prove. 

194 W.Va. at 56, 459 S.E.2d at 333. Based upon these standards, this Court will consider 

the parties’ arguments. 

III. Discussion 

The petitioners contend that the circuit court erred in affirming the 

Commission’s finding that it lacked jurisdiction and in granting the City’s motion for 

summary judgment. The petitioners present multiple arguments. For purposes of this 

Court’s evaluation of this case, we divide the issues into three primary areas of concern: 

jurisdiction of the Commission; existence of a contractual obligation and the application of 

Collins v. Bridgeport; and the impact of the FLSA.8 

8

The petitioners contend that (1) “The Circuit Court erred in finding there was no 

employment contract[;]” (2) The “Circuit Court erred by not finding that under Fair Labor 

Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., an employer cannot unilaterally change the method 

(continued...) 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to the petitioners’ assertions, the City argues that the July 9, 2013, 

and October 7, 2013, orders should be affirmed because the Commission correctly dismissed 

this matter for lack of jurisdiction and the petitioners failed to demonstrate the existence of 

any genuine issues of material fact with regard to their allegations against the City. The City 

further contends that it is not contractually obligated to calculate its overtime rate of pay for 

its firefighters in any particular manner. It asserts that it is not prohibited from altering the 

terms and conditions of employment of its firefighters. The City also contends that its 

reliance upon the Aaron I and Aaron II decisions has no material relevance to the legal issues 

and that this Court’s decision in Collins v. City of Bridgeport, 206 W. Va. 467, 525 S.E.2d 

658 (1999), controls the outcome of this matter. 

A. Jurisdiction of the Commission 

8

(...continued) 

of determining the mode of the regular rate of hourly pay[;]” (3) The “Circuit Court erred in 

finding that the City relied on Aaron v. City of Wichita[;]” (4) The “Circuit Court erred in 

holding that the City could unilaterally modify its employment policies under Collins v. City 

of Bridgeport[;]” and (5) The “Circuit Court erred in finding that firefighters do not have a 

liberty and property interest and not issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the Civil Service 

Commission to hold a full hearing.” 

In addition to those arguments, the petitioners assert various additional assignments 

of error, regarding the circuit court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues 

of unilateral alteration of policy; the absence of employment contracts with the City; the 

method of determining calculation of overtime pay; the City’s reliance or lack thereof upon 

Aaron v. City of Wichita; the City’s discretionary and historic modification of policy as a 

matter of fiscal responsibility and public policy; and the failure to observe liberty and 

property interests. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pursuant to the provisions of West Virginia Code §§ 8-15-11 and 8-15-25, the 

jurisdiction of the Commission is limited to certain well-delineated circumstances.9 The 

Commission may only hear matters that involve the removal, discharge, suspension, or 

reduction in rank or pay of any particular affected individual. W.Va. Code §§ 8-15-11, -25. 

The uncontradicted evidence before the Commission established that none of the petitioners 

had been removed, discharged, suspended, or had been reduced in rank or pay as a 

disciplinary action. In evaluating this issue, the Commission addressed this Court’s decision 

in Darlington, as referenced above, and properly determined that Darlington controlled the 

issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

This Court in Darlington concisely explained that the language of West 

Virginia Code § 7-14-17 (1976),10 related only to disciplinary proceedings instituted against 

deputy sheriffs. 

In this case, the term “reduction in wages” in 

W.Va.Code, 7-14-17(a) is used as part of a group of disciplinary 

actions that cannot be taken without affording the deputy sheriff 

the procedural rights contained in this statute. The action taken 

by the Commission was not predicated on any disciplinary 

event, but instead was related to the payment of insurance 

9

The Commission’s duties, rights, and responsibilities are statutorily-granted, and it 

has only those powers that are conferred by statute; it has no inherent jurisdiction. Pugh v. 

Policeman’s Civil Serv. Comm’n, 214 W.Va. 498, 590 S.E.2d 691 (2003); City of Huntington 

v. Lombardo, 149 W.Va. 671, 143 S.E.2d 535 (1965). 

10The provisions of West Virginia Code § 7-14-17 are virtually identical to West 

Virginia Code § 8-15-25, the provision guiding the Commission in its determination of its 

jurisdiction in this matter. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

premiums for health coverage. 

192 W.Va. at 114, 450 S.E.2d at 811 (footnote omitted). This Court ultimately held that the 

actions of the Sheriff’s Department in Darlington were not based on any disciplinary event, 

but instead were related to payment of insurance premiums for health coverage. The Court 

held that the deputy sheriffs had no right to have the Civil Service Commission decide their 

grievance under West Virginia Code § 7-14-17. 

Comparing the present case to the Darlington situation, the circuit court found 

that none of the petitioners had been removed, discharged, suspended, or reduced in rank or 

pay as part of disciplinary measures against them. Consequently, the circuit court found that 

the Commission’s conclusion was correct and that the reduction in the overtime pay which 

results from the City’s alteration of policyis completely unrelated to anydisciplinarymatters. 

This Court agrees with the circuit court’s conclusion. The rationale of 

Darlington governs this matter, and the City’s changes in policy to which the petitioners 

object did not emanate from any type of disciplinary proceeding which would provide 

jurisdiction for the Commission to hear the underlying matter. The circuit court’s July 9, 

2013, dismissal order is affirmed. 

B.	 Existence of Contractual Obligation and Application of Collins v. Bridgeport 

The petitioners contend that a contractual obligation exists between the City 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and its firefighters which requires that a particular mathematical formula be utilized for the 

calculation of the regular hourly rate used in the payment of overtime wages. The petitioners 

have not presented any individual contracts or collective bargaining agreements as evidence 

that the Cityis contractuallybound to calculate overtime compensation in a particular manner 

or using a certain formula. Instead, the petitioners have presented their assertions regarding 

the existence of an alleged contract by several alternative means. They have characterized 

the alleged contracts as individual in nature, arguing that each firefighter received the benefit 

of a contractual relationship when he or she was initially employed by the City. The 

petitioners have also referred to the alleged contracts as having been negotiated by Local 317 

of the International Association of Firefighters, despite the absence of a collective bargaining 

agreement addressing these issues. Additionally, the petitioners have stated that the alleged 

contracts are premised upon the longstanding policies of the City, dating back to mutual 

agreements of 1991,11 and are not subject to unilateral alteration. 

11This Court recognizes that the enforcement of oral contracts is limited by the 

application of the statute of frauds, as codified in West Virginia § 55-1-1 (2008). The statute 

encourages “the reduction to writing of certain types of agreements which are particularly 

ephemeral of proof, or into which a party is particularly likely to enter in a thoughtless or 

perfunctory manner.” Thompson v. Stuckey, 171 W. Va. 483, 485, 300 S.E.2d 295, 297 

(1983). The statute provides that “[n]o action shall be brought . . . [u]pon any agreement that 

is not to be performed within a year; [u]nless the promise, contract, agreement, 

representation, assurance, or ratification, or some memorandum or note thereof, be in writing 

and signed by the party to be charged or his agent.” W. Va. Code § 55-1-1; see also Fry 

Racing Enters., Inc. v. Chapman, 201 W. Va. 391, 393, 497 S.E.2d 541, 543 (1997) 

(enforcement of oral contract barred by statute of frauds requirement that contracts not to be 

performed within one year must be memorialized in some writing or memorandum). 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The City offered an affidavit from City Councilman J. Thomas Lane regarding 

the existence of any contractual obligation owing to the firefighters. In his January 28, 2013, 

affidavit,12 Mr. Lane stated as follows: 

Any individual firefighter’s contract would have had to have 

been authorized by a resolution or ordinance adopted by a 

majority vote of the City Council to be valid, and would have 

been limited in duration to the then-current budget year, and no 

resolution or ordinance of this nature has been considered 

during my tenure. 

At no time has the existence of any contract containing an 

obligation on the part of the City to calculate hourly wages for 

the City’s firefighters according to any particular methodology 

been brought to my attention or formally discussed, considered 

or approved by the City Council. 

The circuit court reviewed all the evidence submitted by the petitioners, 

including affidavits, wage progression schedules, committee reports, and station log books. 

The circuit court, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioners, found that “no 

evidence has been offered in support of [the petitioners’] underlying proposition that the City 

is contractually bound to calculate overtime compensation in a particular manner into 

perpetuity.”13 The circuit court also rejected the petitioners’ suggestion that the City’s annual 

12Mr. Lane provided two affidavits in this matter. The first affidavit, dated July 19, 

2012, was filed when these matters were pending in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of West Virginia. The second affidavit, dated January 28, 2013, was filed 

in this action in support of the City’s Motion to Dismiss. 

13The divisor used in the formula has changed frequently over the years, but the 

vacation days and Kelly days were subtracted from the divisor prior to the 2011 resolution. 

(continued...) 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wage progression schedules express a contractual obligation. Those documents are, as the 

circuit court correctly emphasized, “only indicative of the year-to-year exercise of the City’s 

discretion with regard to the terms and conditions of employment.” This Court has 

thoroughly reviewed the information provided in the record, and we discern no legitimate 

basis upon which to conclude that the mathematical formula previously used to divide annual 

salary into hourly wages created a contractual obligation to use that same formula into 

perpetuity.14 

Critically, the pivotal issue in this appeal was previously resolved, albeit in 

slightly different form, by this Court in Collins. In that case, the City of Bridgeport had 

followed a longstanding employment practice of including holiday compensation in the 

calculation of overtime compensation for its police officers. 206 W.Va. at 475, 525 S.E.2d 

13(...continued) 

From 1991 through 1995, for instance, the baseline regular hourly rate was calculated by 

dividing a firefighter’s annual salary by 2412 hours for members with less than fifteen years 

of service and 2364 hours for members with more than fifteen years of service. From 1995 

to 1996, those divisors were 2344 and 2296, respectively. From 1997 through 2011, those 

divisors were 2272 and 2224, respectively. 

14The City also emphasizes that “[a]dopting [the firefighters’] assertion that the City 

must forever pay its firefighters in a particular manner not otherwise required by federal or 

state law would force the City to violate the prohibition against expending money or 

incurring future obligations in excess of those funds available in the current budget.” That 

result is disallowed by West Virginia Code § 11-8-26 (2013) (providing that a “local fiscal 

body shall not expend money or incur obligations” in excess of funds available for current 

expenses); see also Edwards v. Hylbert, 146 W.Va. 1, 118 S.E.2d 347 (1960) (holding that 

no contract is valid which will bind levies of future years, without authority from people). 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at 666. After nearly twenty years of using a particular methodology, the city altered its policy 

such that police officers were not paid at an overtime rate until the actual hours worked 

exceeded the hours of compensation not worked during the applicable workweek. Id. The 

police officers objected to the new pay rate calculation and specifically argued that the city’s 

longstanding method of calculating overtime compensation and the police officers’ reliance 

on that practice had created a contractual obligation between the city and its police officers 

that could not be unilaterally modified by the city. Id. This Court rejected the police 

officers’ argument, held that a contractual obligation had not been created, and concluded 

that the city was permitted to unilaterally modify its “long-held policy concerning overtime 

pay provided it notifies its employees of the change.” Id. at 476, 525 S.E.2d at 667. 

The Collins decision is controlling precedent with regard to the City of 

Charleston’s alteration of its method of calculation in the present case, and this Court finds 

it dispositive. Although the petitioners characterize Collins as a misapplication of law and 

suggest that it should be overturned, we find that Collins was premised upon sound 

reasoning. We decline to abandon its holding that a municipality’s past practice relating to 

calculation of overtime pay does not create a contract; that such calculation could be 

unilaterally altered, with notice; and that the municipality is permitted to revoke or alter 

policies. See id. at 476, 525 S.E.2d at 667. We explained in Collins that we were applying 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

principles established in private-sector cases15 to the public sector facts, and we specifically 

stated that the basic tenets of employment law are applicable in both settings.16 This Court 

15See Syl. Pt. 4, Hogue v. Cecil Walker Mach. Co., 189 W. Va. 348, 431 S.E.2d 687 

(1993) (holding that reasonable notice must be provided when employer modifies or revokes 

prior personnel manual). With regard to Hogue, this Court reasoned as follows in Collins: 

The appellants attempt to distinguish Hogue from the instant 

facts, stating first that Hogue is not controlling in the context of 

public employees. We disagree. In the instant case, the 

appellants have failed to cite a specific statute or regulation that 

mandates that Bridgeport treat holiday, vacation, or sick pay as 

time actually worked for the purpose of calculating overtime 

pay. In the absence of such a law, Bridgeport, like a private 

employer, is free to promulgate a policy and subsequently 

modify that policy as long as employees are given reasonable 

notice of the modification. 

206 W.Va. at 476, 525 S.E.2d at 667. 

16The petitioners also attempt to evade the precepts of Collins by emphasizing their 

status as civil service employees, rather than at-will employees. See W. Va. Dep’t. of Env’l. 

Prot. v. Falquero, 228 W.Va. 773, 724 S.E.2d 744 (2012). Although the petitioners are 

correct in their assertion that firefighters are civil service employees, they exaggerate the 

implications of that distinction. While the firefighters’ status as civil servants entitles them 

to certain protections, such as the right to continued employment absent a showing a good 

cause for termination, their status as civil service employees does not entitle them to benefits 

of a perceived contractual obligation where no such obligation exists. See, e.g., Coday v. 

City of Springfield, 939 F.2d 666, 668 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that provisions protecting 

classified service employees from administrative demotion or discipline did not preclude 

reclassification of employees and warning against “misinterpret[ation] of scope” of 

protections afforded to employees where protections “apply only to administrative actions, 

such as the promotion or discipline of employees. They do not limit or preclude the city 

council’s legislative authority to make necessary policy and budget decisions; they do not 

somehow override the express authority for the city council’s actions . . . and, thus, they do 

not create a constitutionally-protected property interest that prohibits the city council from 

passing the ordinance at issue in this case.”); see also W. Central Mo. Reg’l. Lodge No. 50 

v. Bd. of Police Comm’rs of Kansas City, 939 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) 

(holding, even in context of employee manual, that policy which included agreement to 

(continued...) 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

has reevaluated the legal principles underlying the Collins decision. Upon an exhaustive 

consideration of these principles, we are convinced that these precepts are both sound and 

solidly-grounded. We observe additionally that other jurisdictions addressing this issue have 

ruled in a manner consistent with the resolution reached in Collins. 

In reviewing decisions in the public sector, it is imperative to recognize the 

discretion of a public employer, such as the City in the present case. As aptly explained in 

Figuly v. City of Douglas, 853 F.Supp. 381 (D. Wyo. 1994), this discretion forms the 

foundation for evaluation: 

One of the most important characteristics of our 

democratic form of government is the authority of our elected 

officials to make changes mandated by the electorate. The 

ability of incoming officials to change policies, procedures, and 

even key personnel of their predecessors, allows the incoming 

officials to implement their own policies, those policies desired 

by the majority of the public who elected them. To allow a prior 

government or official to bind his successors by creating 

contracts or other commitments which extend beyond his term 

would be contrary to this critical facet of democracy. To be 

certain, it would be neither practical nor desirable for all 

government contracts to terminate upon the completion of the 

term of the officials which made them. Nevertheless, the need 

16(...continued) 

provide annual salary increase of five percent did not constitute contract between city and 

employees and distinction between at-will employees and public employees was not 

dispositive in this context); Swiger v. Civil Serv. Comm’r, 179 W. Va. 133, 138, 365 S.E.2d 

797, 802 (1987) (discussing right to union representation at predisciplinary meeting and 

recognizing that where civil service laws do not offer specific procedural due process 

protections in that context, civil service agencies and courts adopt rationale that guarantees 

public employees same rights as private employees). 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for newly elected officials to effectuate change is an important 

public policy which cannot be ignored by courts interpreting 

government contracts. 

Id. at 384.17 

In evaluating allegations of contractual obligations formed byactions of public 

employers, courts have typically focused upon the right of the employer to control its annual 

budgetary and discretionary functions as well as the absence of an employee’s right to the 

continued existence of a particular means or method of compensation. In Keeling v. City of 

Grand Junction, 689 P.2d 679 (Colo. App. 1984), for instance, the court found that an 

educational incentive pay program for police officers and firefighters did not create a 

contractual obligation. Id. at 680. The Court held that “plaintiffs do not have a vested 

contractual right in the continuance of a particular rate or method of compensation” and 

observed that “succeeding city councils are not bound by the legislative acts of their 

predecessors. . . .” Id.; see also Schulz v. City of Longmont, 465 F.3d 433, 443 (10th Cir. 

2006) (holding that promises city made to pay annual step increases did not result in 

contractual obligation and municipalities retain ability to change compensation and benefits 

provided to employees); Colo. Springs Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Colo. Springs, 784 P.2d 

17See also Baker v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 161 W.Va. 666, 672, 245 S.E.2d 908, 912 

(1978) (observing that “[n]umerous cases in other jurisdictions hold that a legislative body 

has the power to make changes in its public employment, including the civil service system, 

which changes result in either abolishing positions or diminishing the economic rights of 

civil service employees.”). 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

766, 773-74 (Colo. 1989) (finding absence of contractual obligation where ordinance 

provided for payment of health premiums, stating that “Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the 1966 

ordinance would impose future liability upon the City by requiring subsequent councils to 

annually appropriate the funds needed to fund the health premium obligations” and that 

“establishment and modification of such an employee benefit has traditionally been within 

the scope of legislative discretion.”); Unterschuetz v. City of Chicago, 803 N.E.2d 988, 994 

(Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (observing that, even within context of actual ordinance declaring policy, 

“the function of a legislative body is to make laws that declare the policy of a governmental 

body, which laws are subject to repeal when a subsequent legislature decides to alter that 

policy” and that City had “simply announce[d] various policies that the City intends to carry 

out until such time as the city council wishes to change those policies.”); Chicago 

Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 309 N.E.2d 3, 6 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974) (holding that 

police officials did not have property interest in continuation of longstanding policy of 

providing officers with step and longevity salary increases); Foley v. Consol. City of 

Indianapolis, 421 N.E.2d 1160, 1161 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (discontinuation of college 

incentive pay program upheld even though employees allegedly worked in reliance on the 

program); Beckham v. City of Bowling Green, 743 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Ky. 1987) (disallowing 

police officers’ attempt to parlay probable cause statutory provisions regarding reduction of 

salary into prohibitions against city’s “right and dutyto fix the compensation of its employees 

based on the resources available to it.”); Watkins v. Josephine County, 259 P.3d 79, 85-86 

(Or. 2011) (holding that no contractual obligation was created and county was not required 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to refrain from amending personnel benefits resolution, stating that county “never promised 

the permanence of the disputed benefits. . . .”): Alston v. City of Camden, 471 S.E.2d 174, 

179 (S.C. 1996) (finding that even where policy was presented in form of ordinance, it did 

not create employment contract, and city was permitted to reduce fringe benefits. “Even 

assuming the original employee handbook constituted such a contract, Employees had no 

reasonable expectation that the terms of the ‘contract’ would remain unchanged.”) 

In reviewing the approaches of various courts, an important distinction emerges 

between challenged actions that involve retroactive impairment of vested rights and those 

actions that simply alter the terms of future employment. Where the employer’s actions serve 

as a retroactive impairment of rights, those alterations have been disallowed. In Yeazell v. 

Copins, 402 P.2d 541 (Ariz. 1965), for instance, the Arizona Supreme Court held that a 

public employee had a vested contractual right to receive pension benefits pursuant to the 

terms of legislation that existed at the time he entered public employment. Id. at 547. The 

court based this conclusion upon the fact that the pension benefits were a form of deferred 

compensation, earned immediatelyupon the performance of services for the public employer. 

Thus, subsequent alterations of policy could not retroactively impair the rights earned upon 

prior service. Id. at 546.18 This approach is consistent with the holding of this Court in 

18See also Sanchez v. City of New Orleans, 538 So.2d 709, 713-14 (La. 1989) (holding 

that change in civil service firefighter wage policy was permitted where there was no 

retroactive impairment or impingement upon collective bargaining contracts between cityand 

(continued...) 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

syllabus point ten of Booth v. Sims, 193 W.Va. 323, 456 S.E.2d 167 (1995), wherein this 

Court explained: 

When the legislature structured the state trooper’s 

pension system to allow for retirement before age fifty, the State 

encouraged state troopers to forego potential employment 

opportunities today for real pension benefits tomorrow. By 

promising pension benefits, the State entices employees to 

remain in the government's employ, and it is the enticement that 

is at the heart of employees’ constitutionally protected contract 

right after substantial reliance not to have their own pension 

plan detrimentally altered. 

Where, however, a challenged policy alteration does “not involve the 

retroactive impairment of vested rights but [rather] the power to alter the terms of future 

employment[,]” courts have viewed the situation in markedly different fashion and have 

generally approved the modification of policy. Abbott v. City of Tempe, 630 P.2d 569, 574 

(Ct. App. Ariz. 1981) (emphasis supplied). In Abbott, the court analyzed Yeazell and 

specifically distinguished it based upon the prospective/retroactive distinction. Id. The court 

ultimately held in Abbott that adoption of amendments to a city ordinance decreasing rates 

of holiday pay and accrual of vacation credits was permitted and prior practice had not 

created a right “immune from prospective repealing or modifying statutes.” Id. at 575. 

[T]he courts [addressing the prospective/retroactive distinction] 

recognized that a vested contractual right to benefits existed 

only when an employee had already performed services and 

18(...continued) 

firefighters’ union). 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

earned benefits, the payment of which was to be made at a 

future date. This same rationale does not apply where a city has 

merely adopted an ordinance which provides for the payment of 

certain benefits, and an employee has yet to perform services 

entitling him to the benefits. 

Id. 

Based upon this Court’s comprehensive analysis of the issues presented in this 

case, we hold that in the absence of a contractual obligation providing otherwise, a public 

employer is permitted to unilaterally modify a longstanding policy affecting the rights of 

employees where notice19 is provided to such employees and where the modification of 

policy does not retroactively impair previously earned and vested rights, such as pension 

benefits. Our review of this matter demonstrates that the City lawfully passed the resolution 

modifying the formula on November 7, 2011, following notice to the firefighters and the 

public at large. We find that the City complied with the requirements and legal precedent of 

Collins. The modified mathematical formula adopted by the resolution in the present case 

does not retroactively impair a vested right, and this Court consequently finds that the City 

was not prohibited from unilaterally modifying the method by which overtime pay was 

calculated. 

For similar reasons, the petitioners’ alleged property or liberty interest in the 

19See Collins, 206 W.Va. at 476, 525 S.E.2d at 667 (holding that city is permitted to 

unilaterally modify its “long-held policy concerning overtime pay provided it notifies its 

employees of the change.”). 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

continued use of a particular mathematical formula also fails. As in this case, the police 

officers in Collins asserted that the City of Bridgeport’s previous method of calculation of 

overtime compensation had created property rights that could not be unilaterally altered. 206 

W.Va. at 477, 525 S.E.2d at 668. Responding to that contention, this Court observed that it 

was unaware of any statutes or local laws which granted a property interest in any certain 

method of calculation of overtime compensation. The Court explained in Collins that “a 

property interest does not normally arise from policies promulgated solely at the discretion 

of government officials.” Id.; see also Hartman v. Bd. of Educ., 194 W.Va. 539, 460 S.E.2d 

785 (1995). Further, the Court cited Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W. Va. 139, 479 

S.E.2d 649 (1996), for the premise that “although the Constitution protects propertyinterests, 

it does not create them. To decide whether plaintiff had a property interest at stake, we look 

to see whether some independent source, such as federal, state, or local law, has created an 

enforceable expectation.” Id. at 154, 479 S.E.2d at 664. As in Collins, the City’s policies 

in the present case regarding the method of calculation of regular hourly rates do not give rise 

to any property or liberty interests. 

C. Impact of the FLSA 

Although the petitioners did not originallyallege anyviolation of the FLSA and 

based their arguments on issues of state contract law, they asserted FLSA arguments after the 

City’s declaratory judgment action had been dismissed from federal court. In response, the 

City contended that the petitioners were estopped from arguing that a controversy existed 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

regarding the City’s application of the FLSA in state court after arguing in federal court that 

no such controversy existed. The circuit court did not rule upon the City’s estoppel 

contentions and proceeded directly to resolution on the merits, granting summary judgment 

to the City.20 

The petitioners assert that the circuit court erred by failing to find that the 

FLSA prevents an employer from unilaterally changing the method of determining the 

regular rate of pay. A thorough analysis of the petitioners’ arguments requires a brief foray 

into the regulatory framework set forth by the FLSA. The federal act establishes guidelines 

for determining when an employee is entitled to overtime pay and for computing the amount 

of overtime pay due. In that vein, the FLSA enunciates minimum requirements for 

determining a regular hourly rate of pay, as used in the calculation of overtime. See Walling 

v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419, 424 (1945); see also Butler v. 

DirectSat USA, LLC, 800 F. Supp. 2d 662, 671 (D. Md. 2011) (discussing FLSA’s 

20The City has not submitted this issue as a cross-assignment of error, and the circuit 

court essentially mooted the estoppel argument by ruling for the City on the merits of its 

summary judgment motion and failing to rule directly on the estoppel issue. This Court notes 

generally that a primary component of issue preclusion is whether the dismissal in federal 

court was actually “on the merits.” A dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is 

generally not considered to be “on the merits” and therefore does not preclude another claim. 

See 18A Charles A Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and 

Procedure § 4436, n.1 (2d ed. 2002) (“There is little mystery about the res judicata effects 

of a judgment that dismisses an action for lack of subject-matter or personal jurisdiction or 

for improper venue. [Federal] Civil Rule 41(b) provides that a dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction or improper venue does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits.”). 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

establishment of “minimum requirements”). The FLSA’s purpose is to articulate “a national 

floor under which wage protections cannot drop, not to establish absolute uniformity in 

minimum wage and overtime standards at levels established in the FLSA.” Pacific Merch. 

Shipping Ass’n v. Aubry, 918 F.2d 1409, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Section 7(a) of the FLSA21 ordinarily requires that premium overtime wages 

be paid after forty hours in a workweek. Section 7(k), however, sets forth a partial overtime 

exemption for fire protection and law enforcement agencies, as used by the City in the 

present case. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(k).22 Recognizing the unique type of work performed by 

21See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). 

22Section 207(k) provides as follows: 

(k) Employment by public agency engaged in fire protection or law 

enforcement activities 

No public agency shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a) of 

this section with respect to the employment of any employee in fire protection 

activities or any employee in law enforcement activities (including security 

personnel in correctional institutions) if-­

(1) in a work period of 28 consecutive days the employee 

receives for tours of duty which in the aggregate exceed the 

lesser of (A) 216 hours, or (B) the average number of hours (as 

determined by the Secretary pursuant to section 6(c)(3) of the 

Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974) in tours of duty of 

employees engaged in such activities in work periods of 28 

consecutive days in calendar year 1975; or 

(2) in the case of such an employee to whom a work 

period of at least 7 but less than 28 days applies, in his work 

(continued...) 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

police officers and firefighters, Congress provided this partial exemption to the FLSA’s 

overtime requirements for public agency employers. Id. “Section 207k gives employers of 

fire protection and law enforcement personnel greater leeway in structuring wage and time 

calculations.” Lamon v. City of Shawnee, 972 F.2d 1145, 1153 (10th Cir. 1992). 

Reviewing courts have uniformly noted that the effect of the section 207(k) 

partial exemption is to temper the impact of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on public 

employers by raising the average number of hours law enforcement and fire protection 

personnel may be required to work without triggering the overtime requirement and 

accommodating the inherentlyunpredictable nature of those professions bypermitting public 

employers to adopt work periods longer than one week. See Wethington v. City of 

Montgomery, 935 F.2d 222, 224 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that in enacting FLSA 

Amendments of 1974, “Congress recognized that certain jobs are not easily susceptible to 

the workweek method of wage and time calculations, and therefore provided special 

22(...continued) 

period the employee receives for tours of duty which in the 

aggregate exceed a number of hours which bears the same ratio 

to the number of consecutive days in his work period as 216 

hours (or if lower, the number of hours referred to in clause (B) 

of paragraph (1)) bears to 28 days, 

compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at 

which he is employed. 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

calculation methods for some trades, including fire protection and law enforcement.”).23 

Application of the section 207(k) provision is subject to the requirements set 

forth in 29 C.F.R. § 553.230; if a public agency adopts the 28-day work period in accordance 

with the exception stated in 29 U.S.C. § 207(k), an employee engaged in fire protection 

activities may work up to 212 hours per work period before he/she accrues overtime and 

becomes eligible for overtime compensation paid at one and one-half times the regular rate 

of pay. Thereafter, and in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 553.230, for any and all hours 

worked over the 212-hour threshold, overtime compensation must be calculated and paid.24 

“Thus under § 7(k) a firefighter's ‘overtime’ period is calculated based on tours 

23Section 207(k)’s “work period concept was intended to ease the overtime burdens 

of certain public employers by allowing them to average their employees’ duty hours over 

the designated work period, from seven to twenty-eight days in length.” Avery v. City of 

Talladega, 24 F.3d 1337, 1344 (11th Cir. 1994). 

24Section 553.233 defines the “regular rate” as follows: 

The rules for computing an employee’s “regular rate”, for 

purposes of the Act’s overtime pay requirements, are set forth in 

part 778 of this title. These rules are applicable to employees 

for whom the section 7(k) exemption is claimed when overtime 

compensation is provided in cash wages. However, wherever 

the word “workweek” is used in part 778, the words “work 

period” should be substituted. 

See also Lee v. Coahoma Cnty, 937 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1991) (“However, when Section 

778 is used to calculate a § 7(k) employee’s regular wage rate, the work period concept is 

substituted for the term work week. 29 C.F.R. § 553.233.”). 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of duty in excess of a statutorily defined maximum work period, rather than hours worked 

over a 40-hour workweek.” Zumerling v. Devine, 769 F.2d 745, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

It is clear that Congress’ enactment of § 7(k) reflects two 

concerns: that firefighters be protected from unfair work 

schedules and that firefighters’ schedules were particularly 

unsuited to the “hours of work” concept generally applicable in 

determining hours of overtime. See, e.g., 120 Cong.Rec. 8760 

(1974) (Remarks of Senator Williams). In recognition of the 

complexities involved in determining the hours truly considered 

as “overtime” for employees whose working periods include 

both on-duty and standby time, Congress struck a balance. 

Instead of basing overtime on hours worked above 40 hours a 

week, as generally calculated under § 7(a), overtime is instead 

based on tour of duty hours above an administratively-set 

average. Apparent from the statute is Congress’ intent that 

firefighters were not always to be treated the same as other 

workers. 

Zumerling, 769 F.2d at 750. 

Where an employee is compensated on a salary basis, his regular hourly rate 

is computed “by dividing the salary by the number of hours which the salary is intended to 

compensate.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.113 (2011); see also Adams v. Dep’t. of Juvenile Justice of 

City of New York, 143 F.3d 61, 66 (2d Cir. 1998); Monahan v. Cnty of Chesterfield, Va., 95 

F.3d 1263, 1283 (4th Cir. 1996). Regarding whether vacation days and Kelly days are to be 

subtracted from the number of regular hours worked, the court in Aaron II presents very clear 

indication that vacation days and Kelly days are not to be subtracted from the divisor. The 

court explained that “we believe that ‘Kelly days’ were simply another form of paid vacation 

and, therefore, properly included in hours to be compensated by the regular bi-weekly 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

salary.” 54 F.3d at 656. 

The petitioners assert that the FLSA contemplates a modification of a prior 

formula for determining regular hourly rate only upon consent of the employees. In arguing 

this point, the petitioners quote language contained in section 207(f), rather than section 

207(k). That distinction between these two sections is significant. Section 207(k) is 

specifically designed for the situation encountered in the present case where the firefighters 

have a designated schedule of number of hours worked within a certain number of days. The 

City specifically adopted the section 207(k) exemption. Section 207(f), on the contrary, was 

designed for employment necessitating irregular hours of work, examples of which could 

include certain types of firefighters, but was not designed to apply in a situation where an 

employee works a “regularly scheduled workweek or whose schedule involves alternating 

fixed workweeks. . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 778.405. Section 207(f) was similarly not designed to 

apply to “a situation where the employee works an irregular number of hours according to 

a predetermined schedule.” Id. The section 207(k) exemption applies where the employer 

has adopted a qualifying “work period.” See Barefield v. Village of Winnetka, 81 F.3d 704, 

710 (7th Cir. 1996). 

The petitioners’ reliance upon language regarding employee consent and the 

preferability of reducing the agreement to writing in a section 207(f) employment situation 

is wholly unfounded. In fact, precedent addressing the section 207(k) scenario, as exists in 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the present case, specifically holds that a municipality is not “required to obtain the consent 

of its [employees] before instituting a § 207(k) program.” Lamon, 972 F.2d at 1153 n.10; see 

also Barefield, 81 F.3d at 710 (holding that employees’ approval is not required under 

Section 207(k) system); Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 1992). 

The Barefield court recognized that “Congress specifically rejected a requirement that the 

exemption would apply only if employees agreed to it.” 81 F.3d at 710. 

The provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207(k) authorize a public agency to adopt a 212 

hour/28 day work period for purposes of calculating overtime entitlements, and that is 

precisely what the City did in this case. The FLSA and accompanying regulations do not 

entitle the petitioners to the relief sought in this case, and the circuit court did not err 

regarding its application of the FLSA to this matter.25 

25The petitioners have also alleged that the City misstated its reliance on Aaron I and 

Aaron II. As referenced above, the City apparently believed, until 2011, that the 1992 Aaron 

I ruling prevented any changes in the formula for hourly wage calculation it had used. The 

City thereafter allegedly reassessed the requirements in light of the 1995 Aaron II ruling and 

determined that it was not required to subtract vacation days and Kelly days from the divisor 

when dividing annual salary by days worked to arrive at the regular hourly wage. The 

petitioners raise the point that the City could not have entirely relied upon the 1992 Aaron 

I decision for a policy that pre-dated 1992. 

This Court finds that the relevance of the City’s reliance, or lack thereof, on the Aaron 

decisions is of little import at this procedural stage. Any discussion regarding the degree to 

which the City applied or interpreted the Aaron decisions is not determinative of the matters 

decided in the circuit court orders currently on appeal. The legal question of the City’s right 

to unilaterally modify the mathematical formula used in the calculation of hourly pay is not 

answered by an investigation of the City’s prior sentiments with regard to what it believed 

to be required by Aaron I; thus, we find that the circuit court properly disposed of that issue 

(continued...) 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Conclusion 

In affirming the decisions of the circuit court, this Court observes that despite 

the multiple arguments presented in this case, the dispositive issue is relatively succinct. The 

parties differ on the calculation of the number of hours by which to divide the annual salary 

and whether the formula for such calculation can be unilaterally altered by the City. 

Although the petitioners argue that the City is prohibited from altering the longstanding 

policy, the fundamental question is whether any legal principle prevents the City’s action. 

This Court finds that there is no contractual obligation to utilize a particular formula into 

perpetuity, and neither the act of altering policy nor the resulting formula is prohibited by the 

FLSA. Thus, this Court affirms the July 9, 2013, and October 7, 2013, orders of the Circuit 

Court of Kanawha County.26 

25(...continued) 

by finding it irrelevant. The circuit court correctly observed: “This argument is a non 

sequitur and has no bearing on the question posed in the plaintiff’s [petitioners’] Motion for 

Summary Judgment. . . .” 

26This decision should not be construed as limiting the rights of the firefighters and 

the City to negotiate and agree to a particular mathematical formula for the calculation of 

their overtime benefits through the collective bargaining process. As the FLSA and our 

precedent recognize, the parties remain free to negotiate for more favorable terms than the 

minimums provided by the FLSA. This Court has been presented with many variations on 

the theme of uncertainty of compensation structures in public sector employment. See, e.g., 

Joseph M. Pullano v. City of Bluefield, 176 W.Va. 198, 342 S.E.2d 164 (1986) (finding City 

of Bluefield’s plan adequate because it incorporated schedule of hourly rates and because 

firefighters were notified in advance of hourly rates); Local 313, Int’l Assoc. of Firefighters 

v. City of Morgantown, 174 W.Va. 122, 323 S.E.2d 604 (1984) (addressing city’s adoption 

of written personnel rules, in the absence of a finding of express agreement as to how lump 

(continued...) 

31
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affirmed. 

26(...continued) 

sum payment would be divided between regular and overtime payments). Throughout these 

prior appeals, it is apparent that the specific requirements of compensation schemes have not 

been thoroughly evaluated within the underlying employer-employee relationships. The 

admonition of this Court in Ingram v. City of Charleston, 180 W.Va. 313, 376 S.E.2d 327 

(1988), is worth repeating in the present case: 

In the Pullano case, the Court indicated that W.Va. Code, 

21-5C-3(d)(3), offers a procedure whereby an employer can 

obtain advance approval of its pay schedule. The Court believes 

that if this procedure were widely used cases such as the present 

one could be avoided by having the compensation arrangement 

approved in advance. The ultimate benefit of such procedure is 

the avoidance of prolonged and extensive litigation, and this 

Court believes that it would be salutary for employers to employ 

the procedure in the future. 

180 W.Va. at 316, 376 S.E.2d at 330. 

32