## Facts

- Kathy Pabst, James Gilley, and Steve Barton worked as electronic technicians for Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OG&E), monitoring automated heat, fire, and security systems for multiple buildings.
- After a 1994 reduction in force, OG&E shifted from on-site monitoring to a remote on-call system.
- Plaintiffs were on call on weekdays from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. and on weekends 24 hours a day.
- Alarms were routed to home computers for some plaintiffs and to pagers carried by all plaintiffs; later, Barton also received alarms at home via laptop.
- Plaintiffs had to respond to alarms within 10 minutes (later 15 minutes), with discipline threatened for late responses.
- The pagers were only about 70% reliable; combined with short response times, this effectively required plaintiffs to remain at or near home and near their monitoring equipment while on call.
- Plaintiffs regularly responded to multiple alarms at night; their sleep and personal activities were significantly disrupted.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid compensation (including overtime) for on-call monitoring time.
- The district court ruled the on-call monitoring time was compensable, found no willfulness, awarded prejudgment interest, and denied liquidated damages; OG&E appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether on-call time spent continually monitoring alarms by pager and computer, subject to short response times and discipline, is compensable “work” under the FLSA.
2. Whether such on-call monitoring time is noncompensable unless employees contemporaneously recorded and reported it as overtime.
3. Whether OG&E’s failure to pay for the on-call monitoring time was “willful” under the FLSA.
4. Whether the district court properly awarded prejudgment interest while denying liquidated damages.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The court held plaintiffs’ on-call monitoring time was compensable because the restrictions made the time predominantly for OG&E’s benefit.
- The court rejected OG&E’s argument that compensability depended on contemporaneous overtime reporting.
- The court upheld the finding that OG&E’s violation was not willful.
- The court affirmed the award of prejudgment interest and the denial of liquidated damages.

## Legal Principles

- FLSA on-call compensability turns on a fact-specific inquiry into whether the time is spent predominantly for the employer’s benefit, including the extent of interference with personal pursuits.
- Frequent interruptions, short required response times backed by discipline, and practical geographic constraints (including unreliable equipment) can convert on-call time into compensable work.
- Failure to contemporaneously report compensable time does not bar recovery where the employer knew or should have known the work was being performed.
- An FLSA violation is “willful” only if the employer knew its conduct was prohibited or showed reckless disregard as to legality.
- Liquidated damages may be denied if the employer proves good faith and reasonable grounds for believing its conduct complied with the FLSA; prejudgment interest may be awarded to compensate for the time value of unpaid wages.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit concluded that OG&E’s remote on-call alarm monitoring arrangement imposed restrictions severe enough to make the time compensable under the FLSA, and it affirmed remedies awarding prejudgment interest while denying liquidated damages based on lack of willfulness and a finding of good faith.


Pabst v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 228 F.3d 1128 (10th Cir. 2000)