Indiana Fire Department Sued for Allegedly Denying EMT’s Overtime Pay and Retaliation

According to a complaint filed January 21, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, an EMT employed by the City of Batesville alleges that the city denied him and other similarly situated EMTs overtime and later retaliated against him after he complained. The lawsuit was filed by Jacob Michael King, a former EMT for Batesville Fire & EMS. In addition to alleging that his former department misclassified him as a §207(k) firefighter, King also claims the city abruptly terminated him for using “improper language” with a co-worker several months after he complained about the city’s pay practices.

Overtime is one of the largest — and most closely watched — line items in a public-agency fire department’s budget. Chronic staffing shortages, minimum staffing requirements, training requirements, and emergency calls can all drive overtime costs upward. One of the easiest ways to manage those costs is the FLSA’s §207(k) partial overtime exemption.

Section 207(k) of the FLSA allows public-sector fire departments to calculate overtime using a work period longer than the standard 40-hour workweek. Instead of paying overtime after 40 hours in seven days, a department may establish a work period of 7 to 28 consecutive days.

For §207(k) firefighters, overtime is owed only after a higher threshold of hours is worked during that period. For example:

• 28-day work period: Overtime begins after 212 hours
• 14-day work period: Overtime begins after 106 hours
• 7-day work period: Overtime begins after 53 hours

These thresholds were designed to reflect the unique fire service schedules, including 24-hour shifts and long rotations. However, only employees engaged in fire protection activities can be classified as a §207(k) firefighters. The definition of an employee engaged in fire protection activities can be found in the FLSA at 29 USC §203(y):

 (y) “Employee in fire protection activities” means an employee, including a firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, rescue worker, ambulance personnel, or hazardous materials worker, who—

(1) is trained in fire suppression, has the legal authority and responsibility to engage in fire suppression, and is employed by a fire department of a municipality, county, fire district, or State; and

(2) is engaged in the prevention, control, and extinguishment of fires or response to emergency situations where life, property, or the environment is at risk.

Here, according to King’s complaint he was not trained nor had any expectation “to engage in fire suppression or firefighting activities.” If proven, these allegations would likely defeat the department’s ability to claim the §207(k) exemption. This would require the department to pay King [and possibly other similarly situated EMTs] overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of forty every seven-day workweek.

Additionally, the FLSA contains broad anti-retaliation protection intended to protect employees after alleging pay and overtime violations. According to the complaint, the department disciplined King for using “improper language with a co-worker” which is both “common and tolerated within the department.” Again, if proven these allegations could prove very costly for the organization. Employers need to carefully weigh any adverse employment actions taken against employees that have previously voiced wage and hour concerns.

Here is a copy of the complaint.