Police Officers for the Pasadena Unified School District have been getting unpaid lunch periods for the past three years. Pasadena Superior Court Judge Jan Plum, after hearing arguments from Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC ordered that the District compensate all the officers overtime for their unpaid thirty (30) minute lunch brake going back three years.

Under the Fair Labor Standard Act and the Department of Labor's subsequent regulation 553.223(a) meal periods for law enforcement officers may be excluded from overtime provisions if the officers were "completely relieved at duty" during the meal period. Despite the clear DOL regulation, courts have been tilting in favor of management in defining what "completely relieved at duty" means for FLSA purposes. Currently, courts look to determine if the activity during the meal period is "predominately for the benefit of the employer." Henson v. Pulaski County Sheriff's Department (1993) 6 F. 3d 531. As such, the courts have been forced to look at the issue on a case by case basis. Where the officers on meal periods are so restricted such as the officers being required to remain in uniform, leave contact information (such as a telephone number), respond to emergencies, monitor their radio, stay within city limits and respond to questions from the public, the courts have held that is enough to make the meal period compensatable. Lamon v. City of Shawnee (1992) 972 F. 2d 1145, Madera Police Officers Association v. City of Madera (1984) 204 Cal.Rptr. 422.

In the Pasadena case, in addition to the FLSA requirements the applicable memorandum of understanding required overtime pay for all work in excess of the normal eight-hour day or 40 hour week. For the time period in question, the officers were subject to numerous restrictions during their lunch breaks that precluded them from attending to private business. For example, the officers were required to be available by radio or telephone. They were not allowed to change out of their uniforms and sometimes their requests for their lunch breaks were denied completely. On numerous occasions their lunch breaks were interrupted with calls for service.

Based on the evidence presented, Judge Plum, ordered that the District compensate all of the officers for the meal periods during the three year period in which they were not compensated, plus interest. Each officer is expected to receive $15,000 to $20,000.

About the author, Dieter C. Dammeier is a partner with the law firm of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC whose firm represents Police Associations throughout California in disciplinary and labor matters.