Claims by detective sergeants for the District of Columbia police department that their employer failed to calculate their overtime based on the enhanced pay owed them were not barred by the statute of limitations, ruled the federal appeals court sitting in the District of Columbia ( Figueroa v Dist of Columbia Metro Police Dept, February 11, 2011, Garland, M). Each time the officers received a deficient paycheck, that violation gave rise to a new cause of action and began a new statute of limitations period for that particular event.

The District of Columbia provided that police officers promoted to the rank of detective sergeant would receive $595 per year, in addition to their base pay. In December 2003, the plaintiffs filed a grievance though their union alleging that they had not received their additional stipend. After an arbitration award granting the employees the stipend was upheld, the city provided lump-sum payments to all officers who had served in the position of detective sergeant. However, the city did not recalculate officers’ overtime based on the $595 stipend. On November 5, 2007, the officers filed suit alleging violations of the FLSA, but a federal district court found that their FLSA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the officers challenged the district court’s conclusion that their FLSA overtime claims were time-barred. The officers charged that, in calculating their overtime compensation, the city failed to include within their “regular rate” the $595 stipend for detective sergeants. The city countered that the officers’ claims were time-barred because they accrued more than three years before this lawsuit was filed—that is the first time the officers improperly failed to receive the compensation of a detective sergeant. Instead, the officers filed their suit almost four years after the date they filed their grievance for nonpayment of the stipend.

As an initial matter, the appeals court rejected the city’s contention that the officers forfeited their claims arising from paydays after November 5, 2004, by failing to assert them in the district court. Because the officers sought unpaid overtime for their entire tenure as detective sergeants, their claims necessarily included a request for unpaid overtime during the three years before their suit was filed, observed the appeals court. Moreover, in their opposition to the city’s summary judgment motion, the officers argued that wages were unpaid when they were not paid on the ordinary payday, thereby raising a continuing violation claim. Accordingly, the officers did not forfeit this argument. The appeals court observed that it is well established that the statute of limitations for violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA runs anew with each paycheck. Thus, the officers may recover if their paychecks failed to include properly calculated overtime compensation during the two or three years before they filed their complaint—depending on which limitations period was applicable. The entry of summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia with respect to the officers’ overtime claims accruing after November 5, 2004 was reversed.