|
Supreme
Court Rules in Favor of Local Governments in Comp Time Case By
Larry Jones and Roger Dahl In a 6-3 decision, the
U.S. Supreme Court on May 1 ruled in Christensen v. Harris County that a
local government can require its employees to use their accumulated
compensatory leave in order to limit its financial liability. Speaking on
behalf of the Court's majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said "nothing in
the FLSA or its implementing regulations prohibits a public employer from
compelling the use of compensatory time." This ruling is viewed as a
victory for state and local governments because it acknowledges their
authority to determine the amount of comp time liability they will carry on
their books. Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, state and local governments are permitted to give their
employees time off at their regular rate of pay for overtime work, so long
as employees earn one and one-half hour of compensatory (comp) time off for
every hour of overtime work. There is a maximum limit, however, on the
number of comp time hours that public employees may accumulate, 480 hours
for public safety and emergency workers and 240 hours for other state and
local employees. At issue in this case
was whether a government employer can require its employees to use their
accumulated comp time against their wishes. The case involved Harris County
deputy sheriffs, who sued to challenge a policy adopted by the county that
requires employees who accumulate comp time hours at or near the maximum
limit, to make arrangements to take time off in order to reduce their
accrued comp time. Absent an agreement or understanding, the deputy sheriffs
claimed that the FLSA "implicitly prohibits" the county from compelling
them to use accrued comp time. In an opinion letter
issued earlier by the U.S. Department of Labor, the agency provided a
similar opinion, pointing out that absent such agreement, "neither the
statute nor the regulations permit an employer to require an employee to use
accrued comp time." But the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that DOL' s
opinion letter "is not entitled to deference..." And that "nothing in the
Department of Labor's regulations even arguably requires that an employer's
compelled use policy must be included in an agreement." 
Return to Previous Page.
|
