## Facts

- Jeffrey Allen and other current and former Chicago Police Department Bureau of Organized Crime officers sued the City of Chicago under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as a collective action.
- Plaintiffs were issued Department BlackBerry devices and alleged they performed off-duty work (emails, calls, and other tasks) without compensation.
- CPD maintained written policies requiring advance authorization for off-duty work (e.g., call-back assignments or supervisor direction) and requiring officers to submit “time due” slips to obtain payment.
- Evidence showed many officers routinely performed off-duty BlackBerry work without prior approval and often without submitting time-due slips.
- Some officers believed there was an understanding or culture that off-duty BlackBerry work would not be compensated; other officers did submit time-due slips and were paid for off-duty BlackBerry work.
- Supervisors were frequently unaware of off-duty BlackBerry work, and officers generally did not complain to supervisors about uncompensated time.
- The case proceeded to discovery and a bench trial; the parties consented to final disposition by a magistrate judge.

## Issues

1. Whether the City maintained an unwritten policy or practice of denying compensation for off-duty BlackBerry work performed by Bureau of Organized Crime officers.
2. Whether the City was liable under the FLSA for unpaid off-duty work when officers failed to use established reporting procedures and the City lacked actual or constructive knowledge that work was unpaid.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the City after a bench trial.
- The court found plaintiffs failed to prove an unwritten policy or practice of non-compensation for off-duty BlackBerry work.
- The court held the City was not liable under the FLSA where it maintained procedures to request and receive payment, officers who used those procedures were paid, and the City did not know (and had no reason to know) officers were performing uncompensated work without reporting it.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FLSA’s “suffer or permit” standard, an employer must pay for work it knows about, including unauthorized work, if it has actual or constructive knowledge the work is being performed.
- An employer generally is not liable for unpaid overtime where it establishes reasonable procedures for reporting overtime, employees do not follow those procedures, and the employer does not otherwise know or have reason to know the work is being performed uncompensated.
- Absent proof that the employer prevented reporting, discouraged claims, or maintained a practice of denying properly reported overtime, an employee’s failure to report work through established channels defeats an FLSA claim premised on off-the-clock work.
- Written restrictions on when off-duty work should occur are not, without more, proof of a policy to refuse payment for properly reported work.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the officers’ FLSA claims for off-duty BlackBerry work because plaintiffs did not prove a non-compensation practice and did not show the City had actual or constructive knowledge of unpaid work when officers failed to use the City’s overtime reporting process.


Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 10 C 3183, 2015 WL 8493996 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2015)