## Facts

- Joseph Caiazza worked for Carmine Marceno, Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, as one of two patrol officers assigned to Captiva and Sanibel Islands.
- Caiazza’s schedule consisted of seven 12-hour on-duty shifts every 14 days, each followed by a 12-hour on-call period, plus one additional on-call day each week.
- While on call, Caiazza was barred from drinking alcohol, had to keep his cell phone with him, and had to respond to calls within one hour.
- Caiazza claimed the one-hour response requirement effectively prevented him from leaving the islands or their surrounding waters during on-call periods.
- Evidence indicated Caiazza was called out on average about five times during each two-week period.
- Caiazza sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging (1) his on-call time should be treated as compensable hours worked and (2) he did not receive overtime pay for all hours worked, including callouts.
- On the overtime-pay theory, Caiazza alleged workplace practices effectively prevented and discouraged overtime reporting and that he was threatened with withheld pay if he reported all overtime hours worked.
- Marceno denied that on-call time was so restrictive as to be compensable and denied any policy or practice discouraging overtime reporting; he argued Caiazza was paid for overtime he reported.
- Christopher Lusk, the other patrol officer assigned to the islands, testified that he could use on-call time for personal activities such as recreation and time with family.

## Issues

1. Whether Caiazza’s on-call periods, considering the restrictions and callout frequency, were compensable “hours worked” under the FLSA.
2. Whether summary judgment was appropriate on Caiazza’s claim that he worked overtime that went unpaid because employees were effectively discouraged or prevented from reporting all overtime hours.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Marceno on Caiazza’s claim that on-call waiting time was compensable under the FLSA.
- The court denied summary judgment on Caiazza’s claim for unpaid overtime based on allegedly unrecorded work time (including callouts) caused by practices that discouraged or prevented accurate overtime reporting, finding genuine disputes of material fact.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FLSA, on-call time is compensable only when the employee is “engaged to wait,” meaning the restrictions are so substantial that the time is spent mainly for the employer’s benefit rather than the employee “waiting to be engaged.”
- Courts evaluate on-call compensability based on the total circumstances, including geographic limits, response-time requirements, frequency of callouts, and the employee’s ability to use the time for personal pursuits.
- On-call restrictions such as carrying a phone, refraining from alcohol, and reporting within a set period do not automatically make the entire on-call period compensable; relatively infrequent callouts and evidence of meaningful personal use can support a finding of noncompensability as a matter of law.
- An employer can be liable for unpaid overtime if an employee in fact worked overtime and the employer knew or should have known of that work but failed to pay for it.
- Evidence that supervisors discouraged reporting, threatened negative consequences, or otherwise interfered with accurate time reporting can create triable fact disputes on whether overtime was worked and whether the employer failed to pay it, making summary judgment inappropriate.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the deputy’s on-call time on Captiva and Sanibel Islands was not compensable under the FLSA given the overall circumstances, but it allowed the unpaid-overtime claim to proceed because disputed evidence about unreported work and alleged discouragement of overtime reporting required resolution by a factfinder.


Caiazza v. Marceno, 2020 WL 5892019 (2020)