ARTICLE 1 - Town of Natick
ARTICLE 1 - Town of Natick
ARTICLE 1 - Town of Natick
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