
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - More than 1,000 San Francisco police officers have been asked to join a lawsuit that could cost The City millions of dollars in back pay for the time spent gearing up and dressing down for a shift.
The lawsuit claims police officers should receive on-duty pay for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear, such as bullet proof vests, equipment belts and radios.
The process, referred to as “donning and doffing,” is more than just putting on a police uniform, said Leslie Levy, an attorney representing the officers.
She claims the roughly 15 minutes before and after a shift are often spent reading reports, checking for damage on patrol cars, preparing computer equipment and checking protective gear.
The lawsuit, originally filed in February 2007 by a San Francisco police officer, has grown to almost 200 plaintiffs, according to Levy. Last week, she said, a federal judge conditionally approved a collective action notice, allowing any officer ranking as high as a lieutenant to opt in.
Each officer listed on the suit could be awarded between $50,000 to $150,000 for the three years since the “donning and doffing” standard was applied in a court case involving employees at a meat-packing plant. It could cost The City millions of dollars in a judgment or settlement.
The City Attorney’s Office is fighting the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on the grounds that there are only a handful of officers who have to prepare for their shift and that “it is standard practice to permit officers to depart their shifts early if all reports are completed and the next watch is out in the field,” according to court filings.
A recent ruling on a similar case involving 54 San Leandro police officers resulted in a summary judgment in favor of the officers. The ruling said that not only was putting on protective gear a vital part of the work day, but donning a police uniform was also worthy of pay.
A similar case involving Richmond police officers led to a slightly different ruling, however. U.S. District Court ruled that putting on and taking off the uniform — separate from protective gear — was not vital to the police officers’ duty.
The lawsuit comes as the City struggles to close a $338 million budget deficit, which Mayor Gavin Newsom has announced will lead to layoffs. The lawsuit also comes on the heels of a contract that boosts pay for officers by 25 percent in the next four years.
The San Francisco Police Officers Association has announced it will not support or oppose the lawsuit because rights under the Federal Labor Standards Act apply to individuals and not labor unions.
Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
5:51 PM MST on Sat., May. 10, 2008 re: "SFPD’s latest officers may be new, but bring experience"
Report as inappropriate
5:46 PM MST on Tue., May. 6, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
6:11 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008
re: "Officers sue for time spent changing"
Report as inappropriate
4:33 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
re: "Officers sue for time spent changing"
Report as inappropriate
1:43 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
re: "Officers sue for time spent changing"
Report as inappropriate
1:21 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
re: "Officers sue for time spent changing"
Report as inappropriate
11:39 AM MST on Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
re: "Officers sue for time spent changing"
Report as inappropriate
10:16 AM MST on Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
re: "Officers sue for time spent changing"
Report as inappropriate
11:21 PM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
7:53 AM MST on Wed., Jan. 23, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
1:12 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
12:32 AM MST on Tue., Jan. 22, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
7:47 PM MST on Mon., Jan. 21, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
6:00 PM MST on Mon., Jan. 21, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
1:09 PM MST on Mon., Jan. 21, 2008
re: "City dispatchers call for relief"
Report as inappropriate
7:32 AM MST on Mon., Jan. 21, 2008
re: "City dispatchers calling for relief"
Report as inappropriate
2:52 PM MST on Mon., Dec. 3, 2007
re: "New language policy approved for SFPD"
Report as inappropriate
2:38 PM MST on Fri., Nov. 30, 2007
re: "New language policy approved for SFPD"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
In the instance of Iggy Chinn, How is going from a DOJ special agent to a street cop on graveyard a lateral move?
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Carl said:
"Hoffmann, who took on the deputy director job in August, acknowledged the complaint but doubted its validity. “I’m a little bit frustrated because I have an open door policy,” she said. “It could be a small group of disgruntled employees, but since it’s anonymous, it’s very difficult to respond.” ...Or it could be any number of 911 employees who have real issues with working overtime 60+ hours per week every week without vacations who know full well your open door policy means nothing but trouble for the whistle blowers and who know letting others know without giving their names would be the only solution. No validity? Wake up. Turn over is bad because they can't strike...so you think. They don't need your permission to fix it. Are you prepared if they do strike? Validity? Give me a break.
5 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We,Sf residents should counter sue all the sf cops to pay bach times they have been spending in donuts coffee shop. 300 millions deficit can be cut in half.
10 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We just gave these greedy bumbs a 24% increase. No payment for changing clothes!! Let'em all go plain clothes!!
8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
For those who arrive to work in "dressed"- Police Officers are NOT allowed to come to work "dressed" in thier uniform. By law they are NOT allowed be in full uniform and drive in a civilian vehicle. Another arguement is needed-
7 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
No one pays me to dress for work, my commute time, or for the 15-minute early arrival I opt for almost every workday, or when i sometimes work through lunch - nor do I expect them to do so. This is the kind of action, I believe, which gives government employees a bad rap. As one myself, I don't appreciate it.
7 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
sfmike said:
The overpaid, extremely lazy, outrageously incompetent San Francisco Police Department now wants back pay for getting dressed? Can't we just fire them all and start over? They've gotten completely out of hand.
12 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
You don't mean to tell me that these officers in the law suit don't waste 15 minutes of time while on the clock? Common we all know they do. We all do it in our every day job. I work in a corporate office and certainly make personal calls and emails while on the clock. As to so many around me. I have friends who are SFPD and I know for a fact they run quick errands, get coffee etc while on the clock. Additionally, without knowing protocol, it would seem to me that you arrive to work ready to work. That means in full gear. I don't get dressed in my office I have to be ready when I get to work. This is another example of why the city of SF is over budget.
8 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
This comment is in regards to how many WPM you have to type. 40 WPM is not too much to ask. Now you say, why is SF stuck on that standard. Here are some examples. If you were to have a hysterical caller screaming in your ear or trying to get important suspect information and you were to type slower than that, will you tell the caller, hold on, I can't type that fast, you need to repeat all of that again. What do you think the caller will do? Probably hang up and you better pray and hope you got a phone number to call them back. If not, then you're at fault for not being able to keep up. If you have an officer in pursuit and he's running and out of breath and is giving you important information, are you going to tell him the same thing too? Stop and speak slower because I can't keep up? I don't think so. So there is a reason behind it all and if you don't type fast enough, invest in the Mavis Beacon game.
81 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
One problem in getting applicants is that the city dispatchers have to type 40 wpm. San Mateo county dispatchers only need to type 25 wpm. Why is SF stuck on a standard that is not necessary to perform the job?
70 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Further regarding long term disability. Landrover is correct, stress definitely plays a part. The body is not made to maintain high levels of stress for long periods of time. In addition to stress, there are repetitive motion injuries. Typing, for instance, may not lead to a pulled tendon after one day. But typing several hours a day every day, year after year may lead to hand and wrist injuries such as carpal tunnel.
76 agree | 69 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
landrover said:
To the reader that commented on long term disability, how about long term stress then? You should go up to the comm center and see what its really like, perhaps you will put in an application after seeing the dedicated servants work 24/7 days a week.
77 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
SF fan said:
911 operators MUST be alert, not fatigued by hours of manditory overtime. They are HIGHLY SKILLED and should get the same salary as a starting policeman. When I need 911 I want a fresh operator, not a tired, fatigued person going into her last hour of a 12 hour day. My LIFE just might DEPEND ON IT.
77 agree | 52 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
SF Dispatchers do need help, its a job I would not want to do, but I applaud those that want to do it. This is a very stressful environment. If this is true, the dispatchers need to have more time off and better pay. There needs to be looked into since if I have to call 911 I do not want a operator that has worked long hours and does not want to be there. Find a way to recruit more dispatchers like the SFPD by offering a real salary for time served to lure potential candidates. I believe this may help since it gets police and fire applicants to apply for the positions.
100 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The simple fact remains; to be successful SF needs to be competitive in salary, working conditions and benefits. SF is arguably the most expensive, most stressful city to work in the bay area, but the overall compensation structure is not competitive with so many other cities in the bay area where the environment is much less chaotic and the cost of living is far less. Why would a dispatcher choose to work in such a stressful environment when they would qualify for other agencies who have open positions and demand far less? This issue is not going to be solved by new management or new tactics but rather new wage increases to attract new talent. As a dispatcher in the bay area, I would love to live/work in SF but I'm not willing to take the 30-45% pay cut that it would entail.
79 agree | 83 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Perhaps the aforementioned commenter should read the article more carefully. The article is about dispatchers not police officers. Pay attention! Perhaps the answer to the problems for the dispatchers is higher pay and a better retirement. The fact that the SF dispatchers are among the lowest paid dispatchers in the state is a reason they cannot attract more qualified candidates. There were never problems of this magnitude when they were under the control of the police department. Perhaps the department should be returned to the police department. It would be better run and the use of light duty officers could be used to fill in for the missing positions.
89 agree | 74 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Polisehed415 said:
Why doesn't the department hire more Latino police officers? Also, the department needs to get it's officers to learn to be more polite and less hostile when dealing with the public! I had a terrible experience with an officer after someone hit the rear of my car and then took off! The officer treated me like I caused the accident and was so rude that I ended up complaining about him in a letter and formal complaint. I have noticed that the officers here are VERY hostile and argumentative. The department really needs to improve its public relations with civilians!
112 agree | 110 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Will Ebonics be one of the languages?
119 agree | 100 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree