Court Opinion

ID: 9494618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:42:22.154557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:30.955591
License: Public Domain

MANION, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I agree with most of the court’s analysis and conclusions of law in this case, I write separately to express my disagreement with the court’s determination that the City may use premium pay credits to offset liabilities only when they occur during the same pay period. On this issue, I respectfully dissent.
Neither the provisions of § 207(h)(2) of the FLSA, nor its accompanying regulations, require such a limitation. The reasoning articulated in Abbey v. City of Jackson, 883 F.Supp. 181, 186-87 (E.D.Mich.1995),1 makes more sense. There, the dis-*1150triet court, presented with this very issue, held that:
Forcing an employer, who has given a premium rate of pay for overtime, to forego the receipt of credit and to pay additional overtime punishes the employer without regard to whether it was attempting to avoid its obligation to adequately compensate employees for extra hours worked. Plaintiffs have not pointed to any regulations, statutes or current cases, which state that there is a congressional will to penalize an employer that inadvertently fails to follow FLSA by, in effect, assessing civil money damages beyond those enunciated in 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Conversely, there is a clear congressional intent to allow an employer to offset premium rates of pay against overtime owed. 29 U.S.C. § 207(h). If I were to follow plaintiffs’ reasoning, plaintiffs would receive a windfall and the purposes and goals of the statute would not be served. Therefore, defendant may offset the ... premium payments against overtime owed.
This reasoning is especially persuasive in this case where, as the majority acknowledges, the officers have failed to submit any evidence that the City willfully violated the FLSA. I would, therefore, affirm the district court’s decision allowing the City to use the premium payments (i.e., those recognized by this court) to offset any overtime compensation owed to the officers under the FLSA, and remand the case back to the court for a determination as to whether summary judgment was still appropriate in light of this decision.

. See also Alexander v. United States, 32 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1994) (premium pay is creditable toward any overtime compensation due under the FLSA); Kohlheim v. Glynn County, Georgia, 915 F.2d 1473, 1481 (11th Cir.1990) (employer should be allowed to set off ‘'all'' previously paid overtime premiums against overtime found to be due and owing under the FLSA).