Search form

City of Chicago Not Liable for Police Officers’ After-Hours Smartphone Use, Seventh Circuit Affirms

By Jeffrey W. Brecher and Eric R. Magnus
  • August 7, 2017

The City of Chicago lacked either actual or constructive knowledge that members of the Chicago Police Department were performing after-hours work on their smartphones, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, affirming a trial court’s earlier ruling that the City was not liable for this work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allen v. City of Chicago, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14230 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017). The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Background

Current and former members of the Chicago Police Department’s Bureau of Organized Crime alleged they were owed overtime pay for time spent after normal work hours monitoring and responding to email on their BlackBerrys. Although during a bench trial the court found that the plaintiff-employees in fact responded to email as alleged and that the time they spent on such activity was substantial enough to otherwise constitute compensable “work,” the trial court nevertheless held the City was not liable for the uncompen¬sated hours because the plaintiffs failed to prove the Bureau had actual or constructive knowledge the work had been performed. Allen v. City of Chicago, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165906 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10. 2015).

Employer Knowledge Required

On appeal, the Court of Appeals echoed the findings of the trial court. It noted that while generally “[e]mployers must [] pay for all work they know about, even if they did not ask for the work, even if they did not want the work done, and even if they had a rule against doing the work,” this mandate “stops short of requiring the employer to pay for work it did not know about, and had no reason to know about.” Thus, while an employer may be deemed to have had constructive knowledge of, and therefore liability for, unreported work being performed by its employees “if it should have acquired knowledge of that work through reasonable diligence,” that standard asks what the employer reasonably should have known, not what it theoretically could have known.

In this case, the Bureau had a formal procedure for obtaining overtime compensation, which the officers regularly used. Moreover, while some plaintiffs testified that notwithstanding the Bureau’s policy, its “culture” would frown on submitting overtime request slips premised on BlackBerry use, other plaintiffs had submitted requests on this very basis and were paid accordingly. In addition, while certain guidelines issued by the Chicago Police Department suggested that off-duty smartphone use would only be compensated under limited circumstances and with advance approval, in practice these guidelines were neither followed by the officers nor enforced by their supervisors. Thus, agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeals concluded the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate an unwritten policy existed to deny them compensation for off-duty BlackBerry work.

Lessons

The Seventh Circuit’s decision reminds employers that a plaintiff under the FLSA must demonstrate more than having performed the unreported “work” in question; the Act further requires the plaintiff to prove that his or her employer had knowledge, actual or constructive, of that work. To that end, policies requiring employees to report all hours worked, including work performed off site or after regular hours, can be helpful (but may not be dispositive in defending against such claims).

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and other workplace developments.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 12, 2018

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects an Interpretation of ‘Health Insurance’ that Would Nullify State Wage System

June 12, 2018

In the last of a series of decisions reached by the Nevada Supreme Court interpreting the Minimum Wage Amendment (“MWA”) to the Nevada Constitution, the Court concluded that an employer may pay the lower of the state’s two-tier minimum wage “if the employer offers health insurance at a cost to the employer of the equivalent of at least... Read More

June 7, 2018

Number of Contingent Workers Inches Higher, DOL Survey Finds

June 7, 2018

The Department of Labor (DOL) has confirmed the gig economy is alive and well, but the number of workers has increased only slightly in the past decade. The DOL released its much-anticipated “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements Survey” report on June 7, 2018. The number of U.S. workers classified as “contingent” (... Read More

May 7, 2018

California Supreme Court Broadens Definition of Employee in Independent Contractor Analysis

May 7, 2018

Diverging from decades-old precedent, the California Supreme Court has broadened the definition of “employee” in the context of the State’s Industrial Work Commission (IWC) wage orders when undertaking the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis. Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 2018 Cal.... Read More

Related Practices