22.07.2013 Views

ARTICLE 1 - Town of Natick

ARTICLE 1 - Town of Natick

ARTICLE 1 - Town of Natick

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Article 4 Cont’d<br />

PUBLIC STATEMENT REGARDING FINAL JUDGMENT<br />

ON FLSA LITIGATION<br />

On June 15, 2009 the U.S. District Court <strong>of</strong> Massachusetts issued a final judgment in<br />

Case No. 04-11996 RGS on the matter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Natick</strong> Patrol Officers and the <strong>Natick</strong><br />

Superior Officers against the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Natick</strong>. This matter was originally filed in<br />

September, 2004.<br />

This case involves over 60 current and former patrol <strong>of</strong>ficers and superior <strong>of</strong>ficers who<br />

are present or former employees <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Natick</strong>. The Plaintiffs seek payment <strong>of</strong><br />

statutory overtime alleged to be due under the Fair Labor Standards Act <strong>of</strong> 1938, 29<br />

U.S.C. §201, et seq., (“the FLSA”), as amended. The Plaintiffs alleged willful violations<br />

<strong>of</strong> the FLSA, including:<br />

1. Failure to include multiple wage augments that the Plaintiffs receive in<br />

calculating the regular rate and the FLSA overtime rate;<br />

2. Failure to pay superior <strong>of</strong>ficer Plaintiffs at the applicable rate under the FLSA<br />

for principal work duties as superior <strong>of</strong>ficers that immediately precede or<br />

follow the hours <strong>of</strong> their regular shift; and<br />

3. Failure to pay all Plaintiffs at the applicable overtime rate under the FLSA for<br />

time spent working on so-called “<strong>Town</strong>” details.<br />

The Plaintiffs sought both retrospective and prospective damages, specifically the<br />

Complaint sought back pay from September 15, 2001 to the present as well as changes in<br />

the way the Officers are paid going forward. In addition, the Complaint sought liquidated<br />

damages, attorney’s fees and costs.<br />

In the fall <strong>of</strong> 2006 the parties filed Motions for Summary Judgment, asking the Court to<br />

rule on the various issues. On September 25, 2007, the Court ruled as follows:<br />

1. Plaintiffs are entitled to have all wage augments included in their regular rate<br />

<strong>of</strong> pay, with the exception <strong>of</strong> the in-service training differential.<br />

2. Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime for performing “<strong>Town</strong> Details” which the<br />

Court identified as details on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Recreation Department, the<br />

Department <strong>of</strong> Public Works, and the High School.<br />

3. Superior Officers (sergeants and lieutenants) are exempt from the FLSA<br />

overtime provisions.<br />

4. Detectives are not exempt.<br />

5. Plaintiffs eligible for overtime are entitled to liquidated damages.<br />

6. The <strong>Town</strong> is entitled to credit the premium portions <strong>of</strong> all contractual<br />

overtime payments on a cumulative basis towards FLSA payments owed.<br />

7. The parties were to calculate the amount owed to each Plaintiff under the<br />

Court’s rulings and submit a proposed form <strong>of</strong> final judgment.<br />

Page 16

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!