Court Opinion

ID: 9481304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:14:25.678575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:13.064564
License: Public Domain

FAGG, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The court correctly disallows the fire protection activities exception claimed by the city. We need not decide, however, whether the investigators engage in law enforcement activities. The city has not claimed this exception to gain relief from its obligation to pay overtime compensation to the investigators.
I believe the court misses an important point. In my view, it is irrelevant that the investigators rely on the law enforcement activities exception to support their claim that they do not engage in fire protection activities. The FLSA and case law make clear that unless the city asserts and establishes an exception from FLSA coverage, overtime compensation based on the forty-hour standard must be paid to the investigators. Contrary to the court's perception that the investigators “must fall into one of the two categories created in 29 U.S.C. § 207(k),” ante at 266, if the city does not establish a valid exception, the investigators are ordinary employees protected by the FLSA’s mandatory overtime compensation scheme. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision to calculate the investigators’ overtime based on the law enforcement activities exception. The investigators are entitled to overtime based on the forty-hour standard mandated by the FLSA.