Christensen, Edward, et al. v. Harris County, TX, et al. (05/01/2000)

By: Sharna Marcus, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether a public agency governed by the compensatory time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 may, absent a preexisting agreement, require its employees to use accrued compensatory time.

Brief

Edward Christensen and 128 other deputy sheriffs in Harris County, Texas believed they had the right to use their compensatory time when they saw fit.

The rate of comp time in Harris County was time and one-half hours for every hour of overtime compensation accrued. Employees used the extra time as ""bank"" comp time, to be used at their discretion.

The county found that too many employees had too many hours of accrued comp time. Fearing a budget crisis, the county ordered the deputies to take days off immediately. The deputies wanted to use the comp time at any point in the year, as long as it didn't cripple the sherrifs' department.

In 1994, the deputies filed suit in federal court against their employers. They maintained that they should not be forced to reduce their comp hours, and that such a government policy violated their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the policy of Harris County, when an employee reaches the maximum hours of comp time, a supervisor can request that the employee reduce the number of accrued hours ""suitable to the bureau.""

But does that policy conflict with the FLSA, which states:

""(An employee) who has requested the use of such compensatory time, shall be permitted by the employee's employer to use such time within a reasonable period after making the request if the use of the compensatory time does not unduly disrupt the operations of the public agency.""

The U.S. District Court for Southern Texas agreed with the employees, ruling that the policy violated the FLSA and ordered Harris County to pay the employees $21,350.

A divided 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the FLSA, it is the employer's prerogative to reduce comp time.

""In an era of tight public budgets, state employers like Harris County wish to control the accrual of comp time in order to avoid paying cash overtime wages when the amount of accrued comp time for any employee reaches the statutory maximum of 240 or 480 hours. The state employees want to accumulate accrued comp time up to the statutory maximum,"" acknowledged Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, writing for the majority.

However, because Congress was not specific enough about the handling of overtime compensation in the FLSA, ""the employer can set workplace rules in the absence of a negotiated agreement to the contrary. While this default may not achieve the optimal solution in every case, it promotes justice writ large,"" the opinion stated.

Judge James L. Dennis dissented in part. He agreed that the district court's judgment should be reversed, but found the court's reasoning misguided. He contended that an authoritative interpretation of the FLSA exists, and the case should be decided in federal court through a trial or other proceedings.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on Oct. 12, 1999 and limited review to the question presented above. The Court also asked the U.S. Solicitor General for the government's position. In an amicus response, the Solicitor General sided with the deputies and argued that the 5th Circuit's judgment should be reversed.

On May 1, 2000, a 6-3 Court affirmed, holding that public employees who agree to take extra time off instead of collecting overtime pay can be forced to use the time off at their employer's convenience.

Nothing in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or its implementing regulations prohibits a public employer from compelling the use ofcompensatory time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.