No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the State, holding that Oregon State Police class members subject to disciplinary pay reductions were not paid on a 'salary basis' and thus were entitled to FLSA overtime compensation. Remanded for calculation of back pay and liquidated damages.
Hurley v. State of Oregon: Court Rules State Police Entitled to Overtime Pay
This case involved Oregon State Police employees who were classified as salaried workers but faced pay cuts as disciplinary measures. The employees argued they should receive overtime pay under federal wage laws, while the state claimed they were exempt salary employees who weren't entitled to overtime compensation.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the police employees. The court determined that because the state could reduce their pay for disciplinary reasons, these workers weren't truly paid on a "salary basis" as defined by federal law. Since they weren't genuine salary employees, they were entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This decision matters for workers because it clarifies that employers can't have it both ways – they can't classify employees as salaried to avoid paying overtime while still treating their pay like hourly wages by making deductions. If your employer regularly docks your pay for disciplinary reasons or poor performance, you might actually be entitled to overtime compensation even if you're called a "salaried" employee. True salaried employees generally receive the same pay regardless of hours worked or minor workplace issues.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.