Background
Current and former members of the Louisville Metro Police Department’s SWAT Team sued Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government under Kentucky wage-and-hour law and the officers’ collective bargaining agreement. Although assigned to a regular 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift, each officer was also required to remain on call for approximately two weeks per month. On-call officers kept their tactical gear in a provided vehicle, were prohibited from drinking alcohol, and were expected, preferably, to answer calls within five minutes and arrive within 45 minutes. They could work secondary jobs and exchange on-call shifts without prior approval.
Six officers’ claims were tried to a jury, which returned verdicts for Metro. A second group of 53 officers had not yet tried its claims and brought a protective appeal addressing issues that could affect future trials. After initially granting the six officers a new trial, the circuit court reconsidered and reinstated the verdict. The parties appealed rulings concerning summary judgment, jury instructions, evidence, the new-trial motion, the enforceability of the collective bargaining agreement, and Metro’s request for a directed verdict.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed in all four appeals and cross-appeals. It held that compensability turned on whether the on-call assignment predominantly benefited Metro and whether the restrictions were so severe that officers could not use the time effectively for personal purposes. The regulation’s separate “off duty” provision—requiring advance notice that an employee need not resume work until a specified time—did not control officers who were on call. The jury instructions correctly stated the governing on-call standard. Including the off-duty language merely as a factor was error, but harmless and potentially favorable to the officers.
The court also upheld the challenged evidentiary rulings and the denial of a new trial. No party was entitled to summary judgment because the effective-use issue depended on disputed facts. Metro likewise failed to establish that only the police union could sue to enforce the collective bargaining agreement; individual officers could pursue their contract claims as third-party beneficiaries, and neither the agreement nor the governing statutes made the grievance procedure exclusive. Metro’s directed-verdict request was moot because the jury had already ruled for Metro, but the court observed that all six officers held secondary jobs while on call, that they offered no evidence about call-out frequency, and that they presented no evidence that any officer was ever disciplined for failing to answer within five minutes or arrive within 45 minutes.
Key Takeaways
- Under Kentucky law, on-call time is compensable when it predominantly benefits the employer and the restrictions prevent employees from using the time effectively for personal pursuits.
- The regulatory standards for “off duty” time and “on-call” time are distinct; uncertainty about when an on-call employee may be summoned does not itself make every on-call hour compensable.
- Metro did not show that the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure was the officers’ exclusive remedy or that Kentucky law barred individual officers from bringing contract claims.
Why It Matters
The published decision clarifies the Kentucky standard for determining when on-call time constitutes compensable work. Courts must examine the practical severity of the employer’s restrictions rather than treat the absence of a definite return-to-work time as dispositive.
The opinion also provides guidance for the unresolved claims of the remaining SWAT officers. Although their individual facts have not yet been adjudicated, future proceedings must apply the on-call framework endorsed here, including whether each officer could effectively pursue personal activities while awaiting a call-out.