When an employer changes its shift schedule to accommodate employees, the mere fact that pay rates were changed between the old and new scheduling in an attempt to keep overall pay revenue-neutral, does not establish a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements, the Ninth Circuit rules.
The employer in the case had scheduled its employees to work almost exclusively in 8-hour shifts. However, many employees preferred working 12-hour shifts in order to have more days off. In response to employee requests for 12-hour schedules, the employer developed and implemented an optional 12-hour shift schedule and pay plan which set a lower base hourly salary and time-and-a-half pay for hours worked in excess of eight per day. Employees who volunteered for the 12-hour shift schedule would make approximately the same amount of money as they made on the 8-hour shift schedule while working the same number of hours and performing the same duties. The company was later unionized, but the collective bargaining agreement affirmed the practice of paying employees working the 12-hour shift schedule a lower base hourly rate than employees working 8-hour shifts.
Two years after the contract was ratified, an employee filed a class action suit, claiming that the employer’s use of different base hourly rates violates the FLSA because it denied the unionized employees overtime pay.
The Ninth Circuit affirms a lower court rejection of her complaint, ruling that the employer “was justified in responding to its employees’ requests for an alternative work schedule by adopting the sought-after schedule and paying the employees the same wages they received under the less-desirable schedule.” The Court observes that there was no evidence suggesting that the company was attempting to avoid paying its employees overtime wages, “nor can we find any authority that prohibits [the company] from paying employees different hourly rates when they are assigned different shifts.” Parth v. Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center
