Background
Current and former members of the Louisville Metro Police Department’s SWAT Team sued Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government for compensation under Kentucky wage-and-hour law and the officers’ collective bargaining agreement. SWAT members worked a regular first shift and were on call approximately two weeks each month. While on call, they could pursue secondary employment and trade shifts without prior approval, but could not consume alcohol and were expected, preferably, to answer calls within five minutes and arrive within 45 minutes.
Claims brought by six officers, identified by the court as SWAT1, proceeded to trial, where a jury found for Metro. A successor circuit judge initially granted those officers a new trial but later reconsidered, reinstated the verdict, and denied a renewed summary-judgment motion. Fifty-three other officers, identified as SWAT2, pursued a protective appeal concerning their untried claims. Metro cross-appealed, asserting that it was entitled to judgment and that individual officers could not sue to enforce the collective bargaining agreement.
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 assignments predominantly benefited Metro and were so restrictive that the officers could not use the time effectively for personal purposes. The separate regulatory requirements governing when an employee is “off duty” did not control the analysis of on-call time. The jury instructions substantially and correctly stated the governing standard; their inclusion of one off-duty consideration as an optional factor was harmless and likely favored the officers.
The court also found no reversible evidentiary error. The circuit court acted within its discretion in admitting evidence concerning the overall damages sought, Metro’s finances, officer compensation and pensions, other departments’ pay practices, the complete collective bargaining agreement, and the officers’ decisions to join the SWAT Team. An admonition adequately addressed a witness’s reference to spending jurors’ money.
No party was entitled to summary judgment. Material factual disputes existed over whether the officers could effectively use their on-call time for personal purposes, while Metro failed to show that the collective bargaining agreement or Kentucky statutes made the union grievance process the officers’ exclusive remedy. Metro’s directed-verdict issue was moot because the jury had already returned a verdict in its favor, although the court observed that evidence of secondary employment and the absence of proof about call-out frequency or discipline strongly undermined the officers’ claims.
Key Takeaways
- On-call time is compensable when it predominantly benefits the employer and restrictions prevent employees from using the time effectively for personal pursuits.
- The regulation’s requirements for being completely off duty do not automatically govern whether on-call time counts as work.
- Individual officers could pursue contract claims because Metro did not establish that the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure was exclusive.
Why It Matters
The published decision clarifies Kentucky’s test for compensating on-call employees and distinguishes on-call status from the regulation’s separate off-duty category. An employer’s inability to promise a definite return-to-work time does not by itself make every on-call hour compensable.
The ruling also guides any future proceedings involving the 53 SWAT2 officers. Their claims require officer-specific fact-finding, but the circuit court and parties must apply the on-call standard articulated in this opinion.