Court Opinion

ID: 2964945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:16.762432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:55.638489
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1650

                            ANDRES GOTAY-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                          MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Frederic Chardon Dubos on brief for appellants.
            ______________________
            Jose Angel Rey on brief for appellees.
            ______________

                                 ____________________

                                    October 14, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per  Curiam.    Appellants are  present  or  former city
                 ___________

            police officers for the Municipality of San Juan.  They claim

            their employer has violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,  29

            U.S.C.    201  et  seq. ("FLSA"),  in  two respects:    1) by

            failing to  pay overtime  as required  by subsection  207(a),

            even  though they worked more than  40 hours per week; and 2)

            by giving them compensatory time  in lieu of overtime pay for

            hours  worked in  excess  of 35  or 40  hours  per week,1  in
                                                                    1

            violation of subsection 207(o).

                 Both  arguments fail for the same reason.  Appellants do

            not become eligible for payment  of overtime wages until they

            have worked 43 hours per week; see  29 U.S.C.   207(k) and 29
                                           ___

            C.F.R.     553.230(b)  &  (c).    The  rule  applies  to  law

            enforcement personnel  who  have  a  seven to  28  day  "work

            period."    Their argument  that  this special  rule  for law

            enforcement officers does not apply to them, since they never

            work seven consecutive  days, is specious.    A "work period"
                       ___________

            is not a "duty cycle."  Instead,  it is a recurring period of

            work, from seven to 28 days, which the employer sets up ahead

            of time for  determining whether an employee  is eligible for

                                
            ____________________

               1Appellants seem to  claim they were entitled  to overtime
               1
            pay for  hours worked  in excess of  35 per  week; apparently
            local law  is more generous  than federal law with  regard to
            municipal  employees; see  Ordinance No. 58,  Municipality of
                                  ___
            San Juan, June 28, 1985.  Whether appellants allege they were
            entitled  to overtime  pay under  the FLSA  after  working 35
            hours or 40 hours, they still  fail to allege a violation  of
            the FLSA.  See text infra.
                       ___      _____

                                         -2-

            overtime pay  in any given  period.  29 C.F.R.    553.224(a).

            Appellants have not  alleged they were required  to work more

            than  43   hours  in   a  work   period  without   additional

            compensation, so they have failed  to allege or show facts to

            support their claims.

                 Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.
                 _________

                                         -3-