The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that City of Los Angeles fire department dispatchers and aeromedical technicians were entitled to overtime pay because they did not fall within an exemption for employees "engaged in fire protection."  The employees alleged that the exemption did not apply to dispatchers that receive emergency calls and send a dispatch message to the fire station, or to aeromedical technicians that provide support services for helicopters designated as air ambulances by spending most of their flight time administering medical care.  The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to overtime pay, and that the City's denial of overtime constituted a willful violation of the FLSA that justified extending the statute of limitations period from two to three years and awarding liquidated damages.  The district court also concluded that any offsets for overtime payments the employer had already made should be calculated on a weekly basis.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that the employees had been denied overtime because the City of Los Angeles had improperly classified them as being "engaged in fire protection" under the Fair Labor Standard Act.  In so doing, the court reasoned that these employees had no obligation to fight fire while performing their job duties.  Dispatchers were required to work from a City Hall basement and send others to engage in fire suppression, and aeromedical technicians were expected to perform medical duties, evacuate people, and set up equipment.  The court also concluded that the plaintiffs should recover for unlawfully withheld overtime pay for three years instead of two, because the city had been involved in prior litigation regarding the exemption for employees "engaged in fire protection," and was therefore aware of this issue.  The court likewise affirmed the trial court's award of liquidated damages because there was insufficient evidence to show that the employer acted in "good faith" and had objectively "reasonable grounds" for believing that it was not violating the FLSA.  In determining the proper method for offsetting previously-paid overtime against the overtime payments owed under this decision, the court concluded that a week-by-week approach should apply and compensation already paid for work done within one workweek should not be transferrable and offset against overtime due in another workweek.  Haro v. City of Los Angeles