This overtime pay case was filed in May, 2002.  The lead named Plaintiff was Patrick Chavez, a City of Albuquerque Fire Department paramedic lieutenant. 

Plaintiffs charged that the City was erroneously calculating overtime pay so as to deny many city employees the pay they were guaranteed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal statute that sets overtime pay requirements.  After certification of the class action a total of 760 employees and former employees opted-in to the case as Plaintiffs.

The City claimed that for most of its employees who worked overtime it made two calculations:  one under the provisions of the collective bargaining agreements, the other under the FLSA.  The City says that for each pay period and each employee it selected the higher of the two and paid overtime wages accordingly.

The Plaintiffs' attorneys argued that  the "regular rate of pay" used to calculate time-and-a-half overtime pay had to include both the provisions of the negotiated contract and the provisions of the FLSA, thereby giving a substantially higher rate and a higher overtime payment than the City had been paying for many years. 

In the decision on cross motions for summary judgment issued on August 10, 2007, U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera agreed with Plaintiffs and granted summary judgment in their favor on the primary issue of calculating overtime pay.  This meant there would be substantially more pay and recovery of back overtime pay for police, fire, corrections, blue collar, and other city employees.

Trial on the remaining issues was held on September 10.  After closing briefs were submitted, the Plaintiffs expected the Judge to make a final decision on liability, with a damages trial to follow. 

Unfortunately, however, the Court's ruling, filed on January 17, 2008, reversed the prior decision that the City's "dual calculation" method of figuring overtime wages violated the law.  What the Court found in summary judgment was in violation of the FLSA, the Court now said was in compliance with the law.  This created a very confusing situation, as we were legally entitled to rely on the summary judgment decision,  which was made "as a matter of law."

Court's Decision, Findings and Conclusions, Jan. 17, 2008

Because Plaintiffs so strongly disagree with the Court's inconsistent rulings, we have asked for reconsideration or a new trial.  That has now been fully briefed, and we are awaiting a decision on the "new trial" motion. 

Plaintiffs' New Trial Motion and Memorandum, February 1, 2008

City's Response to Plaintiff's Motion, February 14, 2008

Plaintiffs' Reply to City's Response, March 3, 2008

Another issue, the use of the correct numbers to divide and to multiply by, on which the Court ruled against us in the summary judgment decision, remains pending and awaits our appeal if it is not resolved in our favor at the district court level.

Plaintiffs who have "opted in" are listed below, with their opt in dates:

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS - Alphabetical

LIST OF PLAINTIFFS - By Department

Employees and former employees who did not opt-in to this case may print out a consent form for the new case filed by Plaintiffs' attorneys:  Rodriguez, et al., v. City of Albuquerque. 

This form should be returned to: