Opinion ID: 755543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Minimum Wage & Overtime Provisions

Text: 27 To understand fully why the substantive wage and hour provisions of the FLSA were not directly violated by the change, it is helpful to examine exactly how the new pay schedule was implemented. The plaintiffs' pay was delayed by one day each week for five weeks. Once the week-long lag had been phased in, the switch to the biweekly pay system was made. In other words, the plaintiffs were paid: 28 On Friday, October 7, for the week ending Saturday, October 8; 29 On Monday, October 17, for the week ending Saturday, October 15; 30 On Tuesday, October 25, for the week ending Saturday, October 22; 31 On Wednesday, November 2, for the week ending Saturday, October 29; 32 On Thursday, November 10, for the week ending Saturday, November 5; 33 On Friday, November 18, for the week ending Saturday, November 12; 34 On Friday, December 2, for the two weeks ending Saturday, November 26; 35 On Friday, December 16, for the two weeks ending Saturday, December 10; 36 On Friday, December 30, for the two weeks ending Saturday, December 24; 37 And so forth on a biweekly basis. 38 The plaintiffs' claim is that they are entitled to a week's worth of pay in liquidated damages for each of the five weeks during which they were paid one additional day late while the new pay schedule was being phased in. They also seem to allege that, as a result of the change, they were denied a week's pay. Indeed, they contend that the entire design of the defendants' delayed payment scheme was to evade the obligation to pay plaintiffs for a week's work. The plaintiffs do not, however, claim in this lawsuit that they are entitled to reimbursement and liquidated damages for the week's worth of lost wages. 39 This omission seems odd at first, until one realizes that, as the plaintiffs are surely aware, it is simply not correct to say that a week's wages were skipped. Under their contract, the police officers were entitled to be paid a certain amount for the period between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1994. Thus, junior officers had the right to receive $25,262.00 during this one-year period. As a result of the lag, the officers received only 51/52 of the figures listed in their contract for 1994 by December 31, 1994. Thus, junior officers would have received only $24,776 each by December 31, 1994, and would not receive the remaining $486 until January 13, 1995. As the arbitrator held, therefore, the officers were denied timely payment of a week's wages that were due to them under their contract. 40 But there has been no serious suggestion--let alone any proof--that a week's payment was permanently skipped. It was only delayed. If, for example, an officer quit work on December 31, 1994, she would be paid for the work done between the end of the last pay period (December 24) and the date of departure (December 31). She would, of course, receive the check up to two weeks later than she would have under the prior schedule (on January 13 rather than on December 30). But she would get her money. Moreover, since the plaintiffs' wages for every work week were greater than the statutory minimum even when the wages were discounted for the delay in payment, each employee would be paid at least the minimum wage for every hour he or she worked. It follows that the new pay schedule did not result in an evasion of the substantive minimum wage or overtime requirements of the FLSA. 6