Police officers sue city

A claim against the City of Sisters was filed in U.S. District Court by members of the Sisters Police Department on Tuesday, April 15, 1997.

The lawsuit alleges that the city and City Administrator Barbara Warren, individually, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the contract between the city and its employees, and also infringed on employees' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The suit claims that police officers Allan R. Borland, Wayne A. Morgan, Donald K. Pray and Christopher Bangs, and police secretary/dispatcher Patricia R. Davis, suffered approximately $21,813.74 in actual damages.

They are also asking for another $21,813.74 in "liquidated damages" as a penalty against the city, as provided for in the statutes. If they prevail, the police employees would also be entitled to attorney's fees.

Jim Massey of Sisters is representing the police. Massey faxed a letter to city attorney Steve Bryant on Tuesday morning, April 15, with a courtesy copy of the complaint.

In his letter, Massey stressed that the police officers "would be happy to immediately commence settlement discussions with the City in an effort to resolve this matter and to limit legal expenses on both sides of this dispute."

At the same time, Massey wrote that in light of actions taken by the city or threatened by Warren in an April 1 memo, "my clients felt it was imperative to file this action and seek the court's protection."

On Tuesday just before press deadline, city attorney Steve Bryant said "I just received a copy of it (the lawsuit) and we are reviewing it."

Those actions include a refusal of the city to pay the police compensatory time accrued in the last fiscal year, which ended June 30, 1996; refusal to grant pay "step increases" owed this fiscal year as guaranteed by the employee contract; and for a memo which the lawsuit alleges "threatened (employees) with discipline or discharge for violation of the City's "gag" policy adopted by Warren April 1, 1997."

Massey said that these alleged actions represented "two clear violations of the Fair labor Standards Act and three breaches of the contract between the city and the employees."

The lawsuit alleges that the officers accrued compensatory time in 1995-96 with the expectation the city would "buy out" this compensatory or "comp time" as it had in past years and according to policies in the handbook.

However, the suit alleges, in early June 1996, Warren told police that the "buy out" policy would not be followed.

The police then understood that their accrued comp time would be carried over to the next fiscal year. However, the suit alleges, Warren then directed the police chief to make immediate and substantial cuts in accrued comp time, overtime and holiday time.

Attorney Massey said that under the law, agreements between an employee and employer affecting comp time must be in effect before the time is earned.

The agreement in place when the time was accrued said that when "budgeted funds" are available, the "local government must pay overtime rates." When budgeted funds are not available, the "compensation will be converted to time off work at the rate of 1.5 hours of each overtime hour worked."

Massey said this time belongs to the employee. How and when this time is used must be according to a mutual agreement between the employee and employer.

It is against the Fair Labor Standards Act to require an employee to "burn up" this comp time at a schedule ma

ndated by the city, according to Massey.

The lawsuit also alleges that the police were denied "step increases" even though the handbook stipulates that the city can only withhold an annual step increase "if an employee receives an unsatisfactory annual evaluation or letter of reprimand"

None of the employees had received an unsatisfactory evaluation and therefore were entitled to the step increases, according to the lawsuit.

A third claim in the lawsuit alleges that in an April 1, 1997 memorandum (See April 9, 1997 Nugget, page 2), Administrator Warren violated employee civil rights.

In the memo, Warren advised employees "No gossiping or discussing issues unrelated to employee's job on city time, that will create ill will among employees, or undermines the city in any way. In other words not stirring up trouble with other employeesThere will be disciplinary action if any of these issues occur."

Massey claims that the threat of disciplinary action associated with the vague statement of "stirring up trouble" is so overbroad that the "policy and practice of Warren and City contained in the April 1, 1997 memorandum violates the Plaintiff's right to free speech and association guaranteed them by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."

Failure to pay step increases and forcing employees to burn off comp time are ongoing violations and continue to increase the city's liability, Massey said