Christensen v. Harris County

Background

A group of 127 deputy sheriffs sued Harris County, Texas after the county adopted a policy requiring employees to schedule or use accrued compensatory time to limit large overtime balances. The county had asked the Department of Labor whether it could compel use; the agency's acting administrator replied that forced use was allowed only if a prior agreement so provided. A federal district court sided with the deputies, the Fifth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed to decide the issue assuming no prior agreement existed.

Reasoning

The Court framed the key question as whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) forbids a public employer from forcing employees to use accrued comp time when there is no agreement. The majority read the statute's provision that guarantees employees can use comp time on request as a minimal protection, not an exclusive rule about all methods of using comp time. The Court observed other statutory rules—limits on accrual and an employer's ability to cash out hours—and concluded nothing in the FLSA bars an employer from scheduling use. The Court also declined to give controlling deference to the Department of Labor's opinion letter, treating it as persuasive at most, and found that the letter's interpretation was unpersuasive.

Real world impact

The ruling means public employers may implement forced-use policies to reduce large compensatory-time balances and potential cash payouts. It leaves intact employers' ability to tell employees to take time off or to cash out accrued time. The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts in favor of allowing such policies unless a prior agreement limits them.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Souter joined the opinion but noted it should not block the Secretary of Labor from issuing restrictive regulations; Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, arguing the statute requires an agreement and giving weight to the Department of Labor's view.