Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 657.0

529US2

Unit: $U53

[09-26-01 10:37:28] PAGES PGT: OPIN

582

CHRISTENSEN v. HARRIS COUNTY

Opinion of the Court

at 247–251. We granted certiorari because the Courts of
Appeals are divided on the issue.2

528 U. S. 926 (1999).

II

Both parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, con-
cede that nothing in the FLSA expressly prohibits a State
or subdivision thereof from compelling employees to utilize
accrued compensatory time. Petitioners and the United
States, however, contend that the FLSA implicitly prohibits
such a practice in the absence of an agreement or under-
standing authorizing compelled use.3 Title 29 U. S. C.
§ 207(o)(5) provides:

“An employee . . .
“(A) who has accrued compensatory time off . . . , and
“(B) who has requested the use of such compensatory
time,
“shall be permitted by the employee’s employer to use
such time within a reasonable period after making the
request if the use of the compensatory time does not
unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency.”

Petitioners and the United States rely upon the canon ex-
pressio unius est exclusio alterius, contending that the ex-
press grant of control to employees to use compensatory
time, subject to the limitation regarding undue disruptions

2 Compare, e. g., Collins v. Lobdell, 188 F. 3d 1124, 1129–1130 (CA9 1999)
(upholding employer’s policy compelling compensatory time use), with
Heaton v. Moore, 43 F. 3d 1176, 1180–1181 (CA8 1994) (striking down pol-
icy compelling compensatory time use), cert. denied sub nom. Schriro v.
Heaton, 515 U. S. 1104 (1995).

3 We granted certiorari on the question “ ‘[w]hether a public agency gov-
erned by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, 29 U. S. C. § 207(o), may, absent a preexisting agreement, re-
quire its employees to use accrued compensatory time?’ ” 528 U. S. 926,
927 (1999). As such, we decide this case on the assumption that no agree-
ment or understanding exists between the employer and employees on the
issue of compelled use of compensatory time.