LA City Fire Facing FLSA Lawsuit Over Late Reliefs and Mandatory Shift Recalls

The City of Los Angeles is facing an FLSA lawsuit from several city firefighters over late reliefs and mandatory shift recalls. The complaint, which was filed on February 10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, contains allegations related to numerous instances of unpaid overtime raised by several city firefighters.

According to the three named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the department has an “early relief” policy in which firefighters arrive for their 24-hour work shift at 6:30 a.m., even though the official start time of the shift is not until 8 a.m. The firefighters are not paid for this “early relief.” This type of early relief is common in the fire service. In fact, it is so common, the Department of Labor (DOL) crafted a regulation on the topic. Click here for more on that.

Here, the plaintiffs do not challenge the practice of “early relief” among firefighters on a day-to-day basis. However, the plaintiffs allege numerous instances where a firefighter arrives early [6:30 am] to start his or her 24-hour shift but is then delayed in receiving a relief until after 6:30 a.m. the following day. The plaintiffs claim there are two general reasons for this delayed relief.

First, firefighters are frequently held over beyond the “early relief” time, when the firefighter that is reporting for duty in the morning is reporting to that station from another station. Here are two examples as provided in the complaint:

• On January 2, 2023, Plaintiff Gonzalez began a 24-hour platoon shift at 6:30 a.m. On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff Gonzalez was held over until 8:00 a.m., because he was waiting for another Firefighter III Paramedic to travel from another station to relieve him. Defendant paid Plaintiff Gonzalez for only 24 hours even though he worked 25.5 hours.

• On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff Gonzalez began a 24-hour platoon shift at 6:30 a.m. On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff Gonzalez was held over until 7:15 a.m. because he was waiting for another Firefighter III Paramedic to travel from another station to relieve him. Defendant paid Plaintiff Gonzalez for only 24 hours even though he worked 24.75 hours.

Second, the plaintiffs claim that the department frequently orders a “recall” to properly staff the oncoming 24-hour shift. When the department orders a “recall,” certain personnel are required to stay at work until 8:00 am, even if their “early reliefs” have already arrived at the station. During the time of the recall [between 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.] the department determines which personnel will be required to work the entire oncoming shift. Here are two examples as provided in the complaint:

• Plaintiff Gonzalez worked the morning of December 28 through the morning of December 31, 2022. Plaintiff Gonzalez began working at 6:30 a.m. on December 28.  On December 30, 2022, Defendant announced a recall for the C shift for the next day. Accordingly, on December 31, 2022, Plaintiff Gonzalez and similarly situated employees on the C shift were held over from 6:30 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. Defendant paid Plaintiff Gonzalez for 72 hours of work for these three shifts, even though he worked 73.5 hours (6:30 a.m. on December 28 through 8:00 a.m. on December 31).

• Plaintiff Frye worked a 24-hour platoon shift from the morning of September 30, 2022, to the morning of October 1, 2022. He began working at 6:30 a.m. on September 30. At or around 5:00 p.m. on September 30, 2022, Defendant announced a recall for the A shift for October 1, 2022. As a result, Defendant required that Plaintiff Frye remain working past 6:30 a.m. Defendant only paid Plaintiff Frye for 24 hours for this shift, even though he worked 25.5 hours. Plaintiff Frye worked at least 9 platoon shifts during the 27-day work period that included September 30, 2022, meaning that he was entitled to overtime pay for the 1.5 additional hours he worked on October 1, 2022.

According to the firefighters’ attorneys, there will likely be many more plaintiffs joining in on the lawsuit in the coming months. While this is common in most FLSA litigation, the sheer number of potential plaintiffs involved [i.e., Los Angeles City Fire Department employees that have worked in the past three years in the following job positions/ranks: Firefighter III, Paramedic Firefighter III, Apparatus Operator, Engineer, Fire Captain I, Fire Captain II, Fireboat Pilot, Fireboat Mate, Helicopter Pilot I, Helicopter Pilot II, Helicopter Pilot III, Helicopter Pilot IV, and Helicopter Pilot V] certainly make this a lawsuit to follow. In fact, although the complaint contains three named plaintiffs, more than twenty-five additional similarly situated individuals have already requested to be added to the suit. This lawsuit is likely to get real-big, real fast.

Here is a copy of the complaint.