Search:

Custom Search
Photo of Susan Smith

Overtime Pay and Federal Employees

By Susan Smith

Thursday, April 10, 2008

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

Susan McGuire Smith spent most of her 26-year federal government career with NASA, first at NASA Headquarters Office of General Counsel and then at Marshall Space Flight Center, serving as Chief Counsel there for more than 14 years. Her expertise is in government contracts, ethics, and personnel law. Ms. Smith has a J.D and a B.A. degree from the George Washington University. Her publications include Practical Ethics for the Federal Employee.

Bureau of Prison employees who sued seeking compensation for overtime have lost their case in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. (Carlsen v. United States, No. 2007-5011 and Shea v. United States, No. 2007-5099), C.A.F.C., 4/9/08)

The case was on appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, which had ruled against the employees' overtime claims. The lower court concluded that the employees had either failed to show they had actually performed uncompensated overtime work, or that any overtime work performed was de minimis, thus not requiring overtime compensation.

Now, the appeals court affirms the claims court.

The five Prisons employees covered by the appeals court's decision worked in Otisville, New York, and Springfield, Missouri. All argued that the claims court had improperly applied the controlling case law (Doe v. United States, 372 F.3rd 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Doe case held that occasional overtime was not compensable unless—as required by OPM regulation--it was directed or approved in writing by an official with authority to approve overtime.

The Prison employees argued that Doe should not apply to law enforcement work. The appeals court has rejected that argument, pointing out that the OPM regulation applies throughout the civilian workforce. (Opinion p. 4)

The appeals court was equally unpersuaded by the argument that documents such as manuals, training materials emails, and agency standards of conduct requiring Prison employees to follow directives were enough to constitute written authorization or direction to perform overtime. The court stated that such documents "do not direct the performance of overtime work…[and] do not satisfy the requirement of an express written order to perform overtime, because none of them directed work in general, or certain tasks in particular, to be performed outside the employees' regularly scheduled shifts." (p. 5)

© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • who is eligible for sat premium pay title 38...
    Posted: July 30, 2009 12:48 PM
  • I have a question that I'm hoping someone could answer for me. There is a young lady working here as a contract employee. She gets paid $10/hours full time for 80 hours every two weeks. If she works any overtime, she gets paid for it. However, I don't know if her overtime (for example if she has 3 h...
    Posted: July 1, 2008 9:36 AM
  • There is a cap at GS-10 step one and there isn't. Depends on your position and if it is "covered". Which there is a clear definition as to whether you position is covered. If you work in ATC in the FAA you may get it..but the rest of us do not. I don't get "TRUE" overtime which is 1.5 of your ho...
    Posted: June 23, 2008 2:21 PM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

Contact Susan Smith or read more articles on the author's page.