CalCoast News

City may settle police overtime lawsuit

By Craig Tenbroeck
North County Times
August 10, 2008

OCEANSIDE ---- The city appears close to settling a 2006 lawsuit filed by several police officers who claim they weren't paid for work-related chores that they did off the clock, such as putting on their uniforms, checking e-mails and finalizing arrest reports, court documents show.

A document filed in federal court last week calls a settlement imminent. The parties, it states, have already agreed on terms, at least conditionally.

Oceanside is one of several cities fighting this type of labor action, inspired by a Supreme Court decision in 2005 that meatpackers were entitled to wages for time spent putting on and taking off their safety gear.

The city of Santa Rosa settled with 80 of its police officers last month for $240,000. San Luis Obispo made a deal with its police union in June for $55,000 and scheduling concessions.

Oceanside officials have been mum about the terms of their negotiations. Asked about the possibility of a settlement, City Attorney John Mullen would confirm only that the parties were talking.

"There is nothing final," he said last week.

Also unclear was whether a settlement would affect all police officers, though Mullen did say that the city doesn't want to open itself up to potential liability from officers that aren't part of the lawsuit.

"We want to have a comfort level that there's not another lawsuit out there," he said.

Meanwhile, the case is proceeding.

The city has filed a motion asking the judge to rule in its favor. A hearing is slated for next month, and a trial could follow in November.

Punching the clock

Oceanside has a history of litigation with members of its police force.

In 2003, the City Council paid $650,000 to settle a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by three female department employees. And in 2005, the city paid $35,000 to officers who sued over the leak of confidential report.

Twenty-seven current and former officers are involved in the 2006 lawsuit (the complaint lists three dozen plaintiffs, but some dropped out as the case worked its way through court).

At issue is the time officers allegedly spent outside regular shifts on work-related jobs without getting paid.

"Oceanside pressured these officers to complete those tasks and it discouraged them from claiming or obtaining overtime compensation at that time," the officers' attorneys state in a court filing.

The city has denied the claims.

Oceanside argues in court filings that what the officers claim to have done off the clock could have been taken care of during their shifts. In addition, the city states, the officers failed to report overtime, despite city policy to do so.

"It's always been the policy of the city that you're not to work overtime without the written approval of your supervisor," Mullen said.

As for time spent "donning and doffing" uniforms, officers can do that at home, so they shouldn't get paid for it, the city claims.

Steve Colella, one of the officers' attorneys, declined to comment last week.

Nearing the end?

Court documents indicate that the officers approved a settlement in mid-July, and the City Council conditionally approved a deal June 18.

On that day, the council reported only that it discussed the lawsuit in closed session.

"There has been no reportable action that is required yet," Mullen said last week.

A court filing dated Aug. 4 states that the City Council's approval of a settlement is contingent upon "the resolution of any potential claims" by other members of the force.

"As of this writing," it stated, "the parties understand that over 120 releases have been obtained from non-plaintiff officers and expect the steady flow of more during the following weeks."

Mullen declined to discuss the content of the releases.

Aftershocks

It's unclear what impact the years of litigation have had on the city and police force.

Mayor Jim Wood, a retired police detective, said that when the lawsuit was filed, it "caused a lot of grief" within the force and the union.

"It was divisive at best," he said, noting that many of the city's officers didn't sign on.

But union Chairman Houston Alvis, a former plaintiff in the suit, disputed the suggestion that there were rifts among the rank and file.

"I don't see that," he said.

The suit, Alvis insisted, "is not a union thing. Never has been."

About a year ago, the city made changes that addressed some officers' concerns. The Police Department started delaying briefings until 10 minutes into the shift, giving officers extra time to prepare, Mullen said.

Alvis said he was satisfied with the city's actions and pulled out of the suit.

"I'm no longer involved," he said.

In a recent interview, Councilman Jerry Kern said that while the lawsuit may have been well intentioned, it "hurts the Police Department's image in the long run because it sounds like they're trying to squeeze every little dime out of the city."

He says he favors settling so the city can move on to other issues, but "it's hard to tell the citizens that these guys want to get paid to get dressed and undressed," he said.

Contact staff writer Craig TenBroeck at (760) 901-4062 or ctenbroeck@nctimes.com.