Firefighter Overtime Discussing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for Firefighters, First Responders as well as Human Resource & Finance Professional
A federal district court ruled that District Chiefs (DCs) in the City of Orlando’s Fire Department are exempt from any FLSA overtime pay. In a somewhat unusual ruling, United States District Judge Carlos Mendoza accepted the City of Orlando’s request to have an earlier ruling “reconsidered” and ultimately found the DCs met the requirements necessary to be classified as overtime exempt “Highly Compensated Employees.”
The initial lawsuit was first filed on August 15, 2023, by 24 current and former DCs who claimed that they were entitled to unpaid overtime. The DCs argued that they were misclassified as overtime exempt by the City and eligible for overtime pay due to their status as first responders. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations exclude certain “First Responders” from any of the executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) overtime exemptions.
Earlier this year the same court found that the Orlando DCs primary duty was managerial and administrative, not acting as first responders, and therefore were not automatically entitled to FLSA overtime. However, the judge stopped short of finding the DCs overtime exempt since the City had not met its burden of showing that the DCs met the requirements of any of the EAP exemptions. Click here for more on this decision from my friend and colleague, Curt Varone’s Fire Law Blog.
Now, fast forward to this most recent ruling. In response the City of Orlando’s Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Mendoza found that the DCs met the requirements of the “Highly Compensated [overtime] Exemption” without the need for further evidence or testimony. The HCE exemption allows employers to classify certain highly paid employees as exempt from FLSA overtime even if they do not meet all the requirements necessary to meet the FLSA’s EAP exemptions.
In the City’s request for reconsideration, it pointed out that the record already contained evidence showing that nearly all the plaintiff DCs salaries exceeded the threshold necessary to be classified as a HCE. Upon review, the court acknowledged that all the DCs (except one who had withdrawn his claim) met the salary requirement and that their job duties—supervising 18 or more personnel, overseeing operations both in-office and on scene—were non-manual and managerial in nature. This was enough to meet the requirements of the HCE exemption.
Generally speaking, motions for reconsideration are rarely granted, however here the court deemed this case exceptional. The city had previously stipulated that the plaintiffs earned annual salaries of at least “$107,431” instead of “at least $107,432.” This one-dollar difference is critical since employees must make at least $107,432 per year to meet the HCE overtime exemption. This was described as a “scrivener’s error” by the city’s attorneys and a “strategic misstep” by the DCs attorneys. Regardless of whether this was an “error” or a “strategy” the court emphasized that all the correct arguments had been made and the outcome should not hinge on a $1 discrepancy—especially when none of the DCs disputed the actual salary amounts.
No word yet if this decision will be appealed. Here is a copy of the order along with previous coverage of the DCs lawsuit.
