Suit: Answering calls, scanning emails deserves OT
CHICAGO (AP) — Does scanning emails and answering calls from bosses on your smartphone after hours constitute work that should be compensated? A lawsuit winding its way through federal court in Chicago says that it does.
Chicago police Sgt. Jeffrey Allen claims in the suit that the city owes him and fellow officers overtime pay for work performed on department-requisitioned BlackBerry phones. If the plaintiffs eventually prevail, it could mean millions of dollars in back pay.
The issue impacts workers everywhere, Allen's lawyer said Wednesday after a hearing in the case.
"Everybody can relate to this because people are being asked all the time these days to work for free and they are being told to work for free using their phones," attorney Paul Geiger said.
Earlier Wednesday, attorneys for both Allen and the city told a judge they had agreed on the wording of documents that will be sent to other officers asking if they want to join the lawsuit.
According to the suit, police brass pressured subordinates in the department's organized crime bureau to answer work-related calls and emails on their BlackBerrys, and then also dissuaded the officers from filing for overtime.
"A culture has developed where police officers feel compelled to work for free in order to possibly gain a promotion and/or maintain their coveted assignment," according to a plaintiff filing.
The city responded that written policy, on the contrary, specifically instructs officers to ask for overtime. And it argues that Allen lumps together urgent emails with ones that — while sent when he was off duty — could have been responded to the next day.
In a critical ruling in Allen's favor last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier said the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient merit for the lawsuit to continue. It was initially filed in 2010.
While giving the lawsuit a green light for now, Schenkier said complex questions have yet to be addressed, including whether answering calls or scanning emails can be defined as work.
Up to 200 officers are expected to sign on to the suit, after which their attorneys face the daunting task of sifting through thousands of email and phone records to somehow determine which should qualify for OT, Geiger said.
A spokesman for the city law office, Roderick Drew, said in a brief email that he is limited about what he can say about ongoing litigation. But he added that, "The city has stated as its principal legal argument that there were policies and procedures in place allowing Chicago Police Department members to request overtime compensation. That has not changed."
After the suit was filed three years ago, then-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said asking for overtime pay for cellphone use is "silliness." He told a news conference at the time, "We're public servants. If I asked for that, I'd be paid millions of dollars."
But the law cited by the suit, the Federal Labor Standards Act, does not apply to salaried public officials, Geiger argued Wednesday. He added that the judge's decision to let the lawsuit proceed underscored its seriousness.
"I doubt they think it is silly now," he said.
Chicago police Sgt. Jeffrey Allen claims in the suit that the city owes him and fellow officers overtime pay for work performed on department-requisitioned BlackBerry phones. If the plaintiffs eventually prevail, it could mean millions of dollars in back pay.
The issue impacts workers everywhere, Allen's lawyer said Wednesday after a hearing in the case.
"Everybody can relate to this because people are being asked all the time these days to work for free and they are being told to work for free using their phones," attorney Paul Geiger said.
Earlier Wednesday, attorneys for both Allen and the city told a judge they had agreed on the wording of documents that will be sent to other officers asking if they want to join the lawsuit.
According to the suit, police brass pressured subordinates in the department's organized crime bureau to answer work-related calls and emails on their BlackBerrys, and then also dissuaded the officers from filing for overtime.
"A culture has developed where police officers feel compelled to work for free in order to possibly gain a promotion and/or maintain their coveted assignment," according to a plaintiff filing.
The city responded that written policy, on the contrary, specifically instructs officers to ask for overtime. And it argues that Allen lumps together urgent emails with ones that — while sent when he was off duty — could have been responded to the next day.
In a critical ruling in Allen's favor last month, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier said the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient merit for the lawsuit to continue. It was initially filed in 2010.
While giving the lawsuit a green light for now, Schenkier said complex questions have yet to be addressed, including whether answering calls or scanning emails can be defined as work.
Up to 200 officers are expected to sign on to the suit, after which their attorneys face the daunting task of sifting through thousands of email and phone records to somehow determine which should qualify for OT, Geiger said.
A spokesman for the city law office, Roderick Drew, said in a brief email that he is limited about what he can say about ongoing litigation. But he added that, "The city has stated as its principal legal argument that there were policies and procedures in place allowing Chicago Police Department members to request overtime compensation. That has not changed."
After the suit was filed three years ago, then-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said asking for overtime pay for cellphone use is "silliness." He told a news conference at the time, "We're public servants. If I asked for that, I'd be paid millions of dollars."
But the law cited by the suit, the Federal Labor Standards Act, does not apply to salaried public officials, Geiger argued Wednesday. He added that the judge's decision to let the lawsuit proceed underscored its seriousness.
"I doubt they think it is silly now," he said.
I guess I am lucky in the aspect that I get comp time. My boss is very accommodating that way. If I need a half afternoon off for appointments, I still get my full day pay and work from home for the time or even a Saturday if I need to catch up. Being flexible makes for a happy work relationship.
My last job the stuporvisor wanted my home phone number. I asked him if the company was going to pay for the installation and monthly charges for me to have a land-line and he replied, "Of course not!" I told him that if that was the case then he didn't need any phone number for me.
I suppose fair would be fair. Now will the employees reciprocate and compensate the city for doughnut and water cooler time? Oh and also, compensate for the goof off time spent telling jokes, idle chat and shopping using the cityâs internet access? I doubt it.Â
@Dumbfounded883   very well said. i see it every day in my workplace. and when management tries to correct the situation, the entitled" employee is off to the union - on employer time.  Â
I'd be tempted to turn off my department issued phone and not give them my email. If they wanted me to come in to work they could call on the land line and ask me. When a person is hired, the employer is renting their behavior for a specified period of time for a specific amount of money. They are not "buying" that person. Also the employer is responsible for making sure the employee knows what the behaviors are that are being rented.
This kind of thing happens far too frequently. If your at-home, unpaid time is interrupted by phone calls or emails that you need to answer and deal with, you should be paid for doing it. It is work-related tasks that are preventing you from utilizing your unpaid time, therefore you should be paid. My ex's work would require him to answer phone calls, sometimes at 3 in the morning if any came in, but luckily he was always promptly paid the full wages due to him when he did so, unlike the officers in question. Despite having procedures in place that allow them to claim OT for such work, if they were discouraged from filing for it by superior officers, and/or had witnessed others who did so lose privileged assignments or perks, there may be merit (at least to the idea of making specific changes to prevent this from happening again and a claim system to allow those affected to claim the OT hours they are due). I really don't like the idea of lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuit, though. I'm reading far too many such stories in the news lately.
that is true in most white collar professions just the same - and it's not a good trend, unless you get the time back somewhere else, e.g. reduced office hours, flexible schedules, telecommuting, etc.
 @Komo Dragon That's a very good point, there can be other compensations for such after-hours work besides filing for overtime. Personally I would love to leave half an hour early from work and get paid for a full forty hours, even if that means I had to write a couple of emails one evening.