Opinion ID: 2205569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Utilize the Eighty-Six Hour/Fourteen-Day 207(k) Work Period Allowed for Law Enforcement Personnel?

Text: Under the FLSA, an employer must pay an employee overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate at which the employee is employed for work in excess of forty hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Congress, however, adopted a special overtime provision for law enforcement employees. If a public employer adopts a work period consisting of at least seven days and up to twenty-eight days, an employer of a law enforcement officer is not required to pay overtime compensation on a forty-hour work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(k). The regulations define a work period as any established and regularly recurring period of work which, under the terms of the Act and legislative history, cannot be less than seven consecutive days nor more than twenty-eight consecutive days. 29 C.F.R. § 553.224(a). A 207(k) work period need not coincide with the duty cycle or pay period or with a particular day of the week or hour of the day. Id. If an employer adopts a seven-day work period, the employer is not required to pay overtime until the employee worked more than forty-three hours during the seven-day work period. 29 C.F.R. § 553.230(b). If an employer adopts a fourteen-day work period, overtime compensation is not due until such time as the employee has worked more than eighty-six hours during the fourteen-day work period. Id. Finally, if an employer adopts a twenty-eight day work period, overtime compensation is not due until the employee has worked more than 171 hours during the twenty-eight-day work period. Id. The State has the burden of proving the existence of the section 207(k) work period. Barefield v. Vill. of Winnetka, 81 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir.1996). An employer may establish a work period by a public declaration of intent to adopt a work period. Spradling v. City of Tulsa, 95 F.3d 1492, 1505 (10th Cir.1996). A public declaration is not necessary, however, as long as the employer can demonstrate it factually established a 207(k) work period, even if it did not have a 207(k) work period in mind when it adopted its scheduling. Barefield, 81 F.3d at 710. The district court made the following findings regarding 207(k) work periods: (1) The [State has] failed to prove that a 207(k) work period existed prior to November 5, 1995; (2) The [State has] sufficiently proven that for the period from November 5, 1995 to November 15, 1995 a 7-day work period was established pursuant to 207(k); and (3) The [State has] sufficiently proven that for the period from November 15, 1995 to the present date, a 21-day work period was also established pursuant to 207(k). We need only address the district court's first finding because the State's liability ended on November 5, 1995. Pursuant to the first finding, the district court found even though the officers had a fourteen-day pay period, the State presented no credible evidence that indicated the peace officers performed their work pursuant to a fourteen-day work period under section 207(k). Substantial evidence supports this finding. In his order of November 5, 1995, the Commissioner intended to limit the future liability of the State from paying overtime compensation by adopting a sevenday work period for supervisory officers. By adopting a seven-day work period, the State did not have to pay overtime until a supervisory officer worked more than forty-three hours during that seven-day work period. On November 15, 1995, the Commissioner changed the seven-day work period to a twenty-one-day work period. At trial, the Commissioner acknowledged, the longer the work period is, the more advantageous it is for the employer in paying overtime. As the district court noted, if the State established a fourteen-day work period prior to November 5, 1995, then shortening the work period to a seven-day work period on November 5 would be contrary to the express intent of the November 5 order. For these reasons, we will not disturb the district court's ruling on this issue.