Background
Lieutenants and captains in the Harris County Sheriff’s Office sued Harris County under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the County unlawfully denied them overtime compensation. Harris County maintained that the officers were exempt administrative and executive employees. The plaintiffs worked in law-enforcement patrol, investigations, or the County jail system and received compensatory time for hours worked beyond 40 each week.
A magistrate judge granted partial summary judgment to the County, holding that all plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis, all captains were exempt, and criminal-justice lieutenants who helped administer the jails qualified for the administrative exemption. The remaining claims of 29 law-enforcement lieutenants went to trial, where a jury found them exempt under both the administrative and executive exemptions. The magistrate judge denied their post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the officers were paid on a salary basis because they regularly received predetermined compensation and the record showed no actual practice of reducing their pay. Although County policy could permit deductions when an officer lacked sufficient compensatory time, the policy alone did not defeat salaried status without evidence that improper deductions were actually made.
The court also upheld summary judgment as to the criminal-justice lieutenants because the evidence established that their primary duty was administering the County’s jails, including personnel management and quality-control functions, rather than frontline law-enforcement work. It further held that the jury charge tracked Fifth Circuit pattern instructions, did not improperly delegate legal questions to the jury, and did not plainly err by allowing findings under both the administrative and executive exemptions.
Finally, sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. The jury could find that the remaining lieutenants managed recognized subdivisions or shifts, made employment recommendations carrying particular weight, and performed administrative work supporting the Sheriff’s Office’s operations. The magistrate judge therefore properly denied the plaintiffs’ Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 motions.
Key Takeaways
- A written policy permitting salary deductions does not alone destroy salaried status; under Fifth Circuit precedent, evidence of an actual practice of improper deductions is central.
- Supervisory law-enforcement officers may qualify for FLSA exemptions when their primary duties are managerial or administrative rather than frontline first-response work.
- Allowing a jury to find both the administrative and executive exemptions was not plain error because whether those exemptions may apply simultaneously remains reasonably debatable.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that FLSA exemption disputes involving senior public-safety officers turn on their actual primary duties, authority, and compensation practices—not merely their law-enforcement titles or occasional performance of frontline tasks.
For public employers, the ruling also underscores the importance of evidence showing consistent payment of predetermined salaries. For employees, a policy that theoretically allows deductions may be insufficient without proof that improper deductions occurred in practice.