Empathy List Archives

CT

Chuck Thompson

Fri, Nov 3, 2023 2:31 PM

1st Circuit - Contracts - Police - Secondary Employment - Collective Bargaining
The issue in this case involves whether the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement were ambiguous or clear. Police officers engaged in secondary employment through the police department and sought to be paid based upon their regular compensation plus various incentives applicable to their pay when working for the city. The city charged an agency fee of 10% for managing the secondary employment agreements which reduced the pay the officers received. The lower court concluded that the contract terms were ambiguous and awarded the officers the compensation they sought. On appeal the panel concluded that the terms of the contract were unambiguous using the antiquated (but quite appropriate) rule of statutory construction - expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The contract language: "one and one half times the maximum patrolman's rate of pay including night differential." This the city argued was the limit of the compensation intended, whereas the officers sought various augmentations the city pays them under other terms of the agreement.
Owens vs. City of Malden, 22-1674P-01A.pdf (uscourts.gov)http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1674P-01A.pdf

11th Circuit - Legislative Immunity
Because legislative immunity principles can be raised by local government officials, a case from Florida may prove valuable should local officials be called upon to testify regarding their motives in adopting local legislation. The case involves Florida's continuing efforts to be about as "unwoke" as possible. Seeing Critical Race Theory as an attack on the students of Florida, the state passed a law prohibiting its inclusion in curricula. A professor and some others challenged the law based on a claim that it violated the 14th Amendment and sought documents from the legislature. The defendants challenged on legislative privilege. The 11th Circuit concluded that legislative privilege applies to preclude the court from requiring disclosure of documents and testimony from the legislature.
Pernell vs. Florida Board of Governors of the State University, 202310616.pdf (uscourts.gov)https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202310616.pdf

11th Circuit - Qualified Immunity - Warrants - False Information
A gentleman was arrested for involvement in a methamphetamine transaction. Based on confidential informant help government officials monitored a drug deal and arrested the Plaintiff for driving the purchaser of a fair amount of meth to the site of the deal. After having spent six months in jail and six months on probation pending trial, the DA cut the Plaintiff some slack and dropped the charges based on the expectation that time served would be the result of any conviction. But, not having been convicted, the Plaintiff sought to win the 1983 Litigation Lottery and sued. The claims included arguments based on misstatements in the warrant application. The panel, however, noted that the application correctly stated "The affidavit accurately certified, as the basis for probable cause, that the drug task force had "prearranged" the purchase of a trafficking quantity of methamphetamine from Smith, and that Land and Smith had arrrived together at the designated time and place. It explained that Land had "driven [Smith] to the meeting location," was "positively identified" as the driver of the vehicle, and "was present" for the surveilled purchase." While there may have been other information in the application that was erroneous, the quoted language provided sufficient probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff.
Land vs. Sheriff of Jackson County Florida, 202212324.pdf (uscourts.gov)https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212324.pdf

4th Circuit - Judicial Immunity - Facts are stranger than fiction
I offer this case primarily because sometimes facts are better than fiction. In a domestic dispute, one spouse asserted that the other spouse had failed to turn over property that the court had ordered be returned. During a hearing on this claim, the judge adjourned the hearing to reconvene at the home of the recalcitrant spouse. During the ride to the house this recalcitrant spouse researched some law and when they all arrived at the house objected to the forced entry into the home. From the court's decision: "We need not speculate as to what went on after the court's entry into Gibson's home. Unbeknownst to Judge Goldston, her bailiff recorded the first part of the search. The video painted a striking picture. Judge Goldston, her list of unproduced assets in hand, directed proceedings. When the ex-wife identified some photos hanging on the wall as being on the list, Judge Goldston told her to "take 'em." When the ex-wife opened a closet to reveal some yearbooks, Judge Goldston said, "Get 'em." And when the ex-wife said that their old DVD collection was downstairs, Judge Goldston accompanied her down and told her to "go in there and pick the ones you want." The ex-wife sifted through the DVDs as Judge Goldston sat in a rocking chair, shoes off, supervising and giving orders." The judge claimed absolute judicial immunity. The panel being comprised of judges recognized how important judicial immunity should be, but also noted that it only protects judicial acts and in denying immunity said: "Rather, it is based on the fact that the judge clearly exceeded the most common understandings of the proper judicial role."
Gibson vs. Goldston, 221757.P.pdf (uscourts.gov)https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221757.P.pdf

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Of Counsel
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240) 876-6790
D: (202) 742-1016
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./

[logo]https://imla.org/
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.org http://www.imla.org/
Plan Ahead!
Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming eventshttps://imla.org/events/, calls and programming.
Check out our On-Demand webinar libraryhttps://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar with 100+ webinars at your fingertips!

1st Circuit - Contracts - Police - Secondary Employment - Collective Bargaining The issue in this case involves whether the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement were ambiguous or clear. Police officers engaged in secondary employment through the police department and sought to be paid based upon their regular compensation plus various incentives applicable to their pay when working for the city. The city charged an agency fee of 10% for managing the secondary employment agreements which reduced the pay the officers received. The lower court concluded that the contract terms were ambiguous and awarded the officers the compensation they sought. On appeal the panel concluded that the terms of the contract were unambiguous using the antiquated (but quite appropriate) rule of statutory construction - expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The contract language: "one and one half times the maximum patrolman's rate of pay including night differential." This the city argued was the limit of the compensation intended, whereas the officers sought various augmentations the city pays them under other terms of the agreement. Owens vs. City of Malden, 22-1674P-01A.pdf (uscourts.gov)<http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1674P-01A.pdf> 11th Circuit - Legislative Immunity Because legislative immunity principles can be raised by local government officials, a case from Florida may prove valuable should local officials be called upon to testify regarding their motives in adopting local legislation. The case involves Florida's continuing efforts to be about as "unwoke" as possible. Seeing Critical Race Theory as an attack on the students of Florida, the state passed a law prohibiting its inclusion in curricula. A professor and some others challenged the law based on a claim that it violated the 14th Amendment and sought documents from the legislature. The defendants challenged on legislative privilege. The 11th Circuit concluded that legislative privilege applies to preclude the court from requiring disclosure of documents and testimony from the legislature. Pernell vs. Florida Board of Governors of the State University, 202310616.pdf (uscourts.gov)<https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202310616.pdf> 11th Circuit - Qualified Immunity - Warrants - False Information A gentleman was arrested for involvement in a methamphetamine transaction. Based on confidential informant help government officials monitored a drug deal and arrested the Plaintiff for driving the purchaser of a fair amount of meth to the site of the deal. After having spent six months in jail and six months on probation pending trial, the DA cut the Plaintiff some slack and dropped the charges based on the expectation that time served would be the result of any conviction. But, not having been convicted, the Plaintiff sought to win the 1983 Litigation Lottery and sued. The claims included arguments based on misstatements in the warrant application. The panel, however, noted that the application correctly stated "The affidavit accurately certified, as the basis for probable cause, that the drug task force had "prearranged" the purchase of a trafficking quantity of methamphetamine from Smith, and that Land and Smith had arrrived together at the designated time and place. It explained that Land had "driven [Smith] to the meeting location," was "positively identified" as the driver of the vehicle, and "was present" for the surveilled purchase." While there may have been other information in the application that was erroneous, the quoted language provided sufficient probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff. Land vs. Sheriff of Jackson County Florida, 202212324.pdf (uscourts.gov)<https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212324.pdf> 4th Circuit - Judicial Immunity - Facts are stranger than fiction I offer this case primarily because sometimes facts are better than fiction. In a domestic dispute, one spouse asserted that the other spouse had failed to turn over property that the court had ordered be returned. During a hearing on this claim, the judge adjourned the hearing to reconvene at the home of the recalcitrant spouse. During the ride to the house this recalcitrant spouse researched some law and when they all arrived at the house objected to the forced entry into the home. From the court's decision: "We need not speculate as to what went on after the court's entry into Gibson's home. Unbeknownst to Judge Goldston, her bailiff recorded the first part of the search. The video painted a striking picture. Judge Goldston, her list of unproduced assets in hand, directed proceedings. When the ex-wife identified some photos hanging on the wall as being on the list, Judge Goldston told her to "take 'em." When the ex-wife opened a closet to reveal some yearbooks, Judge Goldston said, "Get 'em." And when the ex-wife said that their old DVD collection was downstairs, Judge Goldston accompanied her down and told her to "go in there and pick the ones you want." The ex-wife sifted through the DVDs as Judge Goldston sat in a rocking chair, shoes off, supervising and giving orders." The judge claimed absolute judicial immunity. The panel being comprised of judges recognized how important judicial immunity should be, but also noted that it only protects judicial acts and in denying immunity said: "Rather, it is based on the fact that the judge clearly exceeded the most common understandings of the proper judicial role." Gibson vs. Goldston, 221757.P.pdf (uscourts.gov)<https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221757.P.pdf> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming. Check out our On-Demand webinar library<https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar> with 100+ webinars at your fingertips!

MD

Martin D Munic

Tue, Nov 7, 2023 5:55 PM

Though I think the ultimate result in Owens vs. City of Malden was correct , I think that this case's route of getting there is very flawed and bizarre.

What is the basis of FEDERAL JURISDICTION ?

The statutes involves are Massachusetts's wage laws, and the City, Union and I'd bet at least most of the officers are from Massachusetts.
The opinion doesn't even mention federal jurisdiction. Even if none of the parties mention it, a federal court should raise sua sponte and at any time during the case. So much for federal courts being courts of limited jurisdiction under Art. III.

To the extent this is a breach of a CBA provision, the vast majority of CBAs require breach of contract claims to be raised as a CBA grievance.
Though raising a state statutory claim would be asserted outside of the grievance procedure. Also a breach of contract/CBA would not be a basis
of federal jurisdiction.

As an aside, the CBA's requirement of paying 1.5 times the maximum rate for secondary employment is very generous because under the federal FLSA "special detail" provision the hours worked in secondary jobs do not have to be included in calculating whether the employee's hours worked
exceed the threshold for the 1.5 time pay. See 29 U.S.C. 207(p)

From: Chuck Thompson via Counties counties@lists.imla.org
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:31 AM
To: 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org) policeadvisors@lists.imla.org; cityattorneys@lists.imla.org; counties@lists.imla.org; Federal Law List Serve federal@lists.imla.org
Cc: Ravinder Arneja rarneja@imla.org
Subject: [External] [Counties] Cases of interest - Facts are stranger than fiction

CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.
1st Circuit - Contracts - Police - Secondary Employment - Collective Bargaining
The issue in this case involves whether the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement were ambiguous or clear. Police officers engaged in secondary employment through the police department and sought to be paid based upon their regular compensation plus various incentives applicable to their pay when working for the city. The city charged an agency fee of 10% for managing the secondary employment agreements which reduced the pay the officers received. The lower court concluded that the contract terms were ambiguous and awarded the officers the compensation they sought. On appeal the panel concluded that the terms of the contract were unambiguous using the antiquated (but quite appropriate) rule of statutory construction - expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The contract language: "one and one half times the maximum patrolman's rate of pay including night differential." This the city argued was the limit of the compensation intended, whereas the officers sought various augmentations the city pays them under other terms of the agreement.
Owens vs. City of Malden, 22-1674P-01A.pdf (uscourts.gov)http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1674P-01A.pdf

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Of Counsel
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240) 876-6790
D: (202) 742-1016
[facebook icon]https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/[twitter icon]https://twitter.com/imlalegal[linkedin icon]https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./

[logo]https://imla.org/
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.org http://www.imla.org/
Plan Ahead!
Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming eventshttps://imla.org/events/, calls and programming.
Check out our On-Demand webinar libraryhttps://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar with 100+ webinars at your fingertips!

Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Though I think the ultimate result in Owens vs. City of Malden was correct , I think that this case's route of getting there is very flawed and bizarre. What is the basis of FEDERAL JURISDICTION ? The statutes involves are Massachusetts's wage laws, and the City, Union and I'd bet at least most of the officers are from Massachusetts. The opinion doesn't even mention federal jurisdiction. Even if none of the parties mention it, a federal court should raise sua sponte and at any time during the case. So much for federal courts being courts of limited jurisdiction under Art. III. To the extent this is a breach of a CBA provision, the vast majority of CBAs require breach of contract claims to be raised as a CBA grievance. Though raising a state statutory claim would be asserted outside of the grievance procedure. Also a breach of contract/CBA would not be a basis of federal jurisdiction. As an aside, the CBA's requirement of paying 1.5 times the maximum rate for secondary employment is very generous because under the federal FLSA "special detail" provision the hours worked in secondary jobs do not have to be included in calculating whether the employee's hours worked exceed the threshold for the 1.5 time pay. See 29 U.S.C. 207(p) From: Chuck Thompson via Counties <counties@lists.imla.org> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:31 AM To: 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org) <policeadvisors@lists.imla.org>; cityattorneys@lists.imla.org; counties@lists.imla.org; Federal Law List Serve <federal@lists.imla.org> Cc: Ravinder Arneja <rarneja@imla.org> Subject: [External] [Counties] Cases of interest - Facts are stranger than fiction CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments. 1st Circuit - Contracts - Police - Secondary Employment - Collective Bargaining The issue in this case involves whether the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement were ambiguous or clear. Police officers engaged in secondary employment through the police department and sought to be paid based upon their regular compensation plus various incentives applicable to their pay when working for the city. The city charged an agency fee of 10% for managing the secondary employment agreements which reduced the pay the officers received. The lower court concluded that the contract terms were ambiguous and awarded the officers the compensation they sought. On appeal the panel concluded that the terms of the contract were unambiguous using the antiquated (but quite appropriate) rule of statutory construction - expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The contract language: "one and one half times the maximum patrolman's rate of pay including night differential." This the city argued was the limit of the compensation intended, whereas the officers sought various augmentations the city pays them under other terms of the agreement. Owens vs. City of Malden, 22-1674P-01A.pdf (uscourts.gov)<http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/22-1674P-01A.pdf> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/> Plan Ahead! Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming. Check out our On-Demand webinar library<https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/shopping/shopping.aspx?site=imla&webcode=shopping&cart=0&shopsearchCat=Merchandise&productCat=Webinar> with 100+ webinars at your fingertips! Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

CT

Chuck Thompson

Tue, Nov 7, 2023 8:29 PM

Going from memory only but seem to recall an FLSA claim that didn’t work but may be the basis for jurisdiction.
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 7, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Martin D Munic Martin.Munic@hennepin.us wrote:

Though I think the ultimate result in Owens vs. City of Malden was correct , I think that this case’s route of getting there is very flawed and bizarre.

What is the basis of FEDERAL JURISDICTION ?

The statutes involves are Massachusetts’s wage laws, and the City, Union and I’d bet at least most of the officers are from Massachusetts.
The opinion doesn’t even mention federal jurisdiction. Even if none of the parties mention it, a federal court should raise sua sponte and at any time during the case. So much for federal courts being courts of limited jurisdiction under Art. III.

To the extent this is a breach of a CBA provision, the vast majority of CBAs require breach of contract claims to be raised as a CBA grievance.
Though raising a state statutory claim would be asserted outside of the grievance procedure. Also a breach of contract/CBA would not be a basis
of federal jurisdiction.

As an aside, the CBA’s requirement of paying 1.5 times the maximum rate for secondary employment is very generous because under the federal FLSA “special detail” provision the hours worked in secondary jobs do not have to be included in calculating whether the employee’s hours worked
exceed the threshold for the 1.5 time pay. See 29 U.S.C. 207(p)

From: Chuck Thompson via Counties counties@lists.imla.org
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:31 AM
To: 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org) policeadvisors@lists.imla.org; cityattorneys@lists.imla.org; counties@lists.imla.org; Federal Law List Serve federal@lists.imla.org
Cc: Ravinder Arneja rarneja@imla.org
Subject: [External] [Counties] Cases of interest - Facts are stranger than fiction

CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.
1st Circuit – Contracts – Police – Secondary Employment – Collective Bargaining
The issue in this case involves whether the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement were ambiguous or clear. Police officers engaged in secondary employment through the police department and sought to be paid based upon their regular compensation plus various incentives applicable to their pay when working for the city. The city charged an agency fee of 10% for managing the secondary employment agreements which reduced the pay the officers received. The lower court concluded that the contract terms were ambiguous and awarded the officers the compensation they sought. On appeal the panel concluded that the terms of the contract were unambiguous using the antiquated (but quite appropriate) rule of statutory construction – expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The contract language: "one and one half times the maximum patrolman's rate of pay including night differential." This the city argued was the limit of the compensation intended, whereas the officers sought various augmentations the city pays them under other terms of the agreement.
Owens vs. City of Malden, 22-1674P-01A.pdf (uscourts.gov)https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__media.ca1.uscourts.gov_pdf.opinions_22-2D1674P-2D01A.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=VmkH9vGU97xhx2AiVFMa0EwEMTbVIVkB6LQ3ZriXbpE&e=

Charles W. Thompson, Jr.
Of Counsel
P: (202) 466-5424 x7110
M: (240) 876-6790
D: (202) 742-1016
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=m5oH5d6A3momhaK510psK-cfBOHRHgk54x8hkJLlUPI&e=
<image001.png>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_imlalegal&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=MntbJ2qb79Kpv-Qz6HNW5pobQnvmqLzgJYmcg_LlgAc&e=
<image002.png>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_international-2Dmunicipal-2Dlawyers-2Dassociation-2Dinc._&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=WZWSJ22ty4ZOVTrpzPzStH86Ylyxjhk95oAn3nYYRe4&e=
<image003.png>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=lGWqVW4GiAQrkhr5MKrI7sPYJ-8ttppc-sYHUs6xJxU&e=
<image004.png>
51 Monroe St. Suite 404
Rockville, MD, 20850
www.imla.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.imla.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=iL1ElYXzv9JlXFtZ4frJDlFYuNhuiw0wKFXbBMBHd9U&e=
Plan Ahead!
Plan Ahead! See IMLA’s upcoming eventshttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_events_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=-Sq6dJyprzjMztF5LUoAEjNMg33JGFerp_-kDI3AT9s&e=, calls and programming.
Check out our On-Demand webinar libraryhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__netforum.avectra.com_eweb_shopping_shopping.aspx-3Fsite-3Dimla-26webcode-3Dshopping-26cart-3D0-26shopsearchCat-3DMerchandise-26productCat-3DWebinar&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=38lAAi0Rqv-A65rWoavjY_v8YpW30tQsY8q8RX3fPyU&e= with 100+ webinars at your fingertips!

Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Going from memory only but seem to recall an FLSA claim that didn’t work but may be the basis for jurisdiction. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 7, 2023, at 12:55 PM, Martin D Munic <Martin.Munic@hennepin.us> wrote: Though I think the ultimate result in Owens vs. City of Malden was correct , I think that this case’s route of getting there is very flawed and bizarre. What is the basis of FEDERAL JURISDICTION ? The statutes involves are Massachusetts’s wage laws, and the City, Union and I’d bet at least most of the officers are from Massachusetts. The opinion doesn’t even mention federal jurisdiction. Even if none of the parties mention it, a federal court should raise sua sponte and at any time during the case. So much for federal courts being courts of limited jurisdiction under Art. III. To the extent this is a breach of a CBA provision, the vast majority of CBAs require breach of contract claims to be raised as a CBA grievance. Though raising a state statutory claim would be asserted outside of the grievance procedure. Also a breach of contract/CBA would not be a basis of federal jurisdiction. As an aside, the CBA’s requirement of paying 1.5 times the maximum rate for secondary employment is very generous because under the federal FLSA “special detail” provision the hours worked in secondary jobs do not have to be included in calculating whether the employee’s hours worked exceed the threshold for the 1.5 time pay. See 29 U.S.C. 207(p) From: Chuck Thompson via Counties <counties@lists.imla.org> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 9:31 AM To: 'policeadvisors@lists.imla.org' (policeadvisors@lists.imla.org) <policeadvisors@lists.imla.org>; cityattorneys@lists.imla.org; counties@lists.imla.org; Federal Law List Serve <federal@lists.imla.org> Cc: Ravinder Arneja <rarneja@imla.org> Subject: [External] [Counties] Cases of interest - Facts are stranger than fiction CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments. 1st Circuit – Contracts – Police – Secondary Employment – Collective Bargaining The issue in this case involves whether the terms of a Collective Bargaining Agreement were ambiguous or clear. Police officers engaged in secondary employment through the police department and sought to be paid based upon their regular compensation plus various incentives applicable to their pay when working for the city. The city charged an agency fee of 10% for managing the secondary employment agreements which reduced the pay the officers received. The lower court concluded that the contract terms were ambiguous and awarded the officers the compensation they sought. On appeal the panel concluded that the terms of the contract were unambiguous using the antiquated (but quite appropriate) rule of statutory construction – expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The contract language: "one and one half times the maximum patrolman's rate of pay including night differential." This the city argued was the limit of the compensation intended, whereas the officers sought various augmentations the city pays them under other terms of the agreement. Owens vs. City of Malden, 22-1674P-01A.pdf (uscourts.gov)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__media.ca1.uscourts.gov_pdf.opinions_22-2D1674P-2D01A.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=VmkH9vGU97xhx2AiVFMa0EwEMTbVIVkB6LQ3ZriXbpE&e=> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=m5oH5d6A3momhaK510psK-cfBOHRHgk54x8hkJLlUPI&e=> <image001.png> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_imlalegal&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=MntbJ2qb79Kpv-Qz6HNW5pobQnvmqLzgJYmcg_LlgAc&e=> <image002.png> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_international-2Dmunicipal-2Dlawyers-2Dassociation-2Dinc._&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=WZWSJ22ty4ZOVTrpzPzStH86Ylyxjhk95oAn3nYYRe4&e=> <image003.png> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=lGWqVW4GiAQrkhr5MKrI7sPYJ-8ttppc-sYHUs6xJxU&e=> <image004.png> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.imla.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=iL1ElYXzv9JlXFtZ4frJDlFYuNhuiw0wKFXbBMBHd9U&e=> Plan Ahead! Plan Ahead! See IMLA’s upcoming events<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__imla.org_events_&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=-Sq6dJyprzjMztF5LUoAEjNMg33JGFerp_-kDI3AT9s&e=>, calls and programming. Check out our On-Demand webinar library<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__netforum.avectra.com_eweb_shopping_shopping.aspx-3Fsite-3Dimla-26webcode-3Dshopping-26cart-3D0-26shopsearchCat-3DMerchandise-26productCat-3DWebinar&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=0SeTY5xTYzlnEpZimwgcfvl1VHZsrHbaQ4uFGsVR9Wg&m=DkMb1CevPUJ1KhlYvvF_VUO2hYQReosPL8igGeOyPcd38hFHqvuAka2srU8ZC9i_&s=38lAAi0Rqv-A65rWoavjY_v8YpW30tQsY8q8RX3fPyU&e=> with 100+ webinars at your fingertips! Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.