Rogers v. City of San Antonio
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
392 F.3d 758 (2004)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
The San Antonio Fire Department (the city) (defendant) had a collective-bargaining agreement with its firefighters that contained an overtime policy consistent with the special rules for firefighters in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pursuant to the overtime policy, firefighters worked in 21-day increments for 159 hours at the regular rate. Beginning with the 160th hour, firefighters earned the overtime rate of pay. The city scheduled firefighters for 168 hours per week. In general, any hours of absence did not count towards a firefighter’s eligibility for overtime pay, unless they were scheduled vacation time. Fifteen firefighters (the reservists) (plaintiffs) were also members of the military reserves, which required them to be absent for training one weekend per month and one two-week period per year. The city did not count the reservists’ military leaves as hours worked for purposes of overtime eligibility. The reservists brought suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), claiming that the city should have deemed them constructively present at work during military leaves for purposes of overtime. The district court granted summary judgment for the reservists, and the city appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dennis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.