Opinion ID: 610591
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disciplinary Suspensions

Text: 22 The Officers also urge that they were not salaried employees because under City policy they could be suspended without pay for failing to report absences. The evidence indicated that City policy allowed suspensions without pay for repeated failures to call-in absences from work. 23 Under the regulations, a salaried employee's pay may not be subject to reduction because of variations in the quantity and quality of the work performed. 29 C.F.R. § 541.118(a). The initial question presented is whether reductions imposed for disciplinary reasons relate to the quantity and quality of work. The regulations address this question only indirectly. Specifically, § 541.118(a)(5) provides that: 24 Penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules of major significance will not affect the employee's salaried status. Safety rules of major significance include only those relating to the prevention of serious danger to the plant, or other employees, such as rules prohibiting smoking in explosive plants, oil refineries, and coal mines. 25 Courts construe exemptions to the FLSA narrowly in order to further Congress' goal of providing broad federal employment protection. Abshire, 908 F.2d at 485. Guided by this principle, courts have concluded that because an exception was necessary for safety rules of major significance, reductions made for infractions of other types of rules constitute reductions based on the quantity and quality of an employee's work. E.g., Klein v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Lukes Medical Ctr., 990 F.2d 279, 285 (7th Cir.1993); Lacey v. Indiana State Police Dep't, 810 F.Supp. 244, 247 (S.D.Ind.1992). Klein, for example, involved a nurse in an acute care unit for patients with severe psychological disorders. Id. at 281. The Seventh Circuit concluded that because the nurse's pay was subject to reduction for tardiness as well as for rude, abrupt, and irritable behavior to fellow staff members, she was not paid on a salary basis. Id. at 286. Service Employees International Union, Local 102 v. County of San Diego, 784 F.Supp. 1503 (S.D.Cal.1992), involved facts strikingly similar to those in this case. The plaintiffs, deputy probation officers, were subject to discipline if they left work for even a few hours without seeking and obtaining permission. Id. at 1508. The court concluded that the employees were not paid on a salary basis. Id. at 1511; see also Lacey, 810 F.Supp. at 248 (disciplinary reductions for insubordination, discourtesy or insolence, abuse of sick leave, tardiness, and uncleanliness, among other grounds); Pautlitz v. City of Naperville, 781 F.Supp. 1368, 1372 (N.D.Ill.1992) (disciplinary reductions for accepting gratuities). We agree with these holdings and conclude that disciplinary reductions in pay, other than for violations of major safety rules, constitute reductions in pay based on the quantity and quality of an employee's work. 26 We also conclude, contrary to the City's suggestion otherwise, that a failure to report absences from work simply does not violate a safety rule of major significance as contemplated by § 541.118(a)(5). To hold otherwise would require stretching the meaning of safety rule in a manner antithetical to the goal of broad federal employment protection. Cf. Pautlitz, 781 F.Supp. at 1372 n. 6 (rejecting the idea that disciplinary infractions by law enforcement personnel could be construed as safety violations inasmuch as any breakdown in discipline may be seen ultimately to jeopardize public health and safety). Because reductions in pay for failure to report absences are reductions based on quantity and quality of work and do not fall within one of the exceptions to § 541.118, we conclude that the Officers were not paid on a salary basis from September 1987 to September 6, 1991. 27 With regard to the period from September 6, 1991, to the present, we conclude differently. The power to reduce an employee's pay for failure to report an absence is inherent in the power to reduce an employee's pay for part-day and full-day absences for personal reasons, both of which were permissible following promulgation of § 541.5d. The Department of Labor made this point clear when it amended § 541.5d on August 19, 1992. Under the amended regulation, employees of public agencies are not disqualified from exemption as managers or administrators if agency policy requires the employee to be placed on leave without pay for absences for personal reasons ... when accrued leave is not used by an employee because ... permission for its use has not been sought. 57 Fed.Reg. at 37,677. The regulation expressly authorizes suspensions without pay as a disciplinary sanction for public employees who are absent without leave. The City's disciplinary policy therefore did not disqualify the Officers from exemption after September 6, 1991.