From Texas
Question: What are the pros and cons of switching from an eight-hour shift to a ten-hour shift in a police department. ?
Answer: The eight-hour shift is increasingly becoming an anomaly in police departments. We estimate that today, less than 25% of agencies use an eight-hour shift as the predominant patrol shift. Now, alternative shifts such as ten-hour, 12-hour, and a variety of other shifts are the most prevalent.
The primary advantages to longer work shifts is that they give employees more time off, act as a recruiting and retention tool, can provide for “power” shifts allowing the placement or more staffing on the street at peak times, and, depending upon the configuration, can result in officers working together as unit with the same work days and days off. The primary disadvantages to longer work shifts are that, depending upon the configuration of the shift, equipment costs can be higher and the staffing costs associated with an overlap period can be higher. We’ve seen figures on sick leave use, workers’ compensation injuries, chargeable motor vehicle accidents, and internal affairs complaints. Though the jury’s out in all four areas, what we’ve seen tends to favor the longer shifts.
From Wisconsin
Question: What are the legal rights and responsibilities of an employer who has a police officer who cannot use a NIOSH (or State equivalent for public employers) required respirator mask? Can that person no longer perform an essential function? Is he/she subject to termination for that reason? Can a rehabilitation program be required?
Answer: We know of no police officer cases involving respirators. However, there are several cases like this involving male African-American firefighters. African-American males suffer at a disproportionate rate from a condition known as pseudofolliculitis barbae, a painful inflammation of skin pores that is aggravated by shaving.
The cases all involve “no-beard” policies of fire departments, policies that are the product of the need for a tight fit on some respirators (the technology of respirators has evolved a bit since these cases). Viewed from the perspective of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the policies have a disparate impact both on the basis of race (African-Americans) and disability (PFB). The courts have nonetheless turned aside challenges to the law, citing national standards for firefighters requiring respirators, and a tight fit on respirators, and holding that such standards were a bona fide occupational qualification. Whether these cases translate to a police environment is an open question.
Assuming that a respirator policy adversely impacts one with a disability, an employer would need to go through all the normal reasonable accommodation options required under the ADA. Such steps might involve trying different types of respirators such as negative-pressure respirators, placing the officer in an open position where there is no requirement for a respirator, and locating other jobs within municipal employment that the officer could perform.
From California
Question: In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alden v. Maine, can a labor organization sue its state employer for injunctive relief to remedy FLSA violations? Is the immunity bar to damages only?
Answer: We know of no cases that have tested the issue. However, there are two themes in FLSA cases that would argue against such a suit being successful: (1) Labor organizations are not thought to be proper party plaintiffs in FLSA cases; and (2) In most cases, injunctions are only available in lawsuits brought by the Department of Labor. Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Alden, which prohibits individual lawsuits for damages under the FLSA by state employees, we think the only realistic option under the FLSA for state employees is if the Department of Labor becomes involved in a case on behalf of the employees.