Chagoya v. City of Chi.

• Citation: 992 F.3d 607
• Decision Date: 25 March 2021
• Docket Number: 19-3183,Nos. 19-3180,s. 19-3180
• Parties: Armando CHAGOYA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Robert Bartlett, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

992 F.3d 607

Armando CHAGOYA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,andRobert Bartlett, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 19-3180

19-3183

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued October 28, 2020

Decided March 25, 2021

Paul Durbin Geiger, Attorney, Law Offices of Paul D. Geiger, Northfield, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Sara K. Hornstra, Attorney, City of Chicago Law Department, Chicago, IL, Myriam Z. Kasper, Attorney, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Ripple, Wood, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Ripple, Circuit Judge.

Current and former members of the Chicago Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics ("SWAT") Unit brought actions¹ on behalf of themselves and similarly situated SWAT operators² against their employer, the City of Chicago ("the City"). They alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq.

In their complaint, the operators related that when they take their SWAT equipment home, they must store some of that equipment inside their residences; it cannot be left in their vehicles. The operators sought compensation for the off-duty time required to transport, load, unload, and store their gear inside of their residences.

The City moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the operators filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the FLSA and IMWL claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, and the operators filed a timely appeal.³ We now hold that the district court correctly determined that the activity of transporting, loading and unloading equipment to and from residences, and securing equipment inside residences is not integral and indispensable to the operators’ principal activity. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court.

IBACKGROUND

A.

The plaintiffs are current and former officers assigned to the Chicago Police Department's SWAT Unit. The SWAT Unit became a full-time unit of the Chicago Police Department ("CPD") in 2005 and is based at the Homan Square facility on the west side of Chicago. The SWAT Unit consists of a Commanding Officer, an Assistant Commanding Officer, supervisors, operators, and support personnel. The Commanding Officer reports directly to the CPD's Deputy Chief of Special Functions. The SWAT Unit is organized into four squads of operators; each squad is supervised by at least one sergeant.

The SWAT Unit's mission is a special and dangerous one. It provides a tactical response to critical incidents beyond the capabilities of normal police response, such as hostage situations, barricaded or suicidal subjects, sniper or active shooter situations, and terrorism-related incidents. SWAT operators therefore must carry specialized gear and weaponry. Their equipment includes ballistic entry vests, a radio, headset, gas mask, night-vision goggles, helmet, a Glock 9mm handgun, and an M4 carbine rifle. Some SWAT operators perform unique roles, such as sniper, breacher, or medic, and must carry additional gear to perform these duties.

The SWAT Unit maintains a rotation schedule. Two squads are assigned to work in the Special Operations Response Time ("SORT") cars, while the other two squads engage in training. Every two weeks, the squads switch assignments. While on a SORT-car cycle, an operator reports for duty at Homan Square at the beginning of the shift. Operators are first given fifteen minutes to transfer their weapons and gear into their assigned SORT car before reporting inside for roll call. Operators are also given at least fifteen minutes prior to the end of their shift to transfer and secure their weapons and gear out of their SORT cars. These transfers are considered "on the clock," and the officers are compensated for the time expended on this transfer.

In the event of a critical incident, on-duty SWAT operators are the first called to respond. If additional operators are needed, an off-duty call-out occurs. Off-duty operators are contacted by phone and email. If an operator is available and willing to respond, the operator responds to the call-out. As soon as an off-duty operator agrees to respond, the operator is considered "on duty" and is compensated starting from the time of the off-duty call-out. This compensation covers the time spent loading equipment stored in the operator's home to the operator's vehicle, traveling to the incident site, traveling back to Homan Square after the incident is resolved, and attending a debriefing session at Homan Square. Operators are also given an additional ninety minutes to two hours of overtime compensation to organize and clean their gear and weapons.

For the first several years of the SWAT Unit's full-time existence, operators were not authorized to take their rifles home while off duty. Rather, they stored their rifles on a SWAT weapons truck, which was kept at the Homan Square facility. In late 2008 and early 2009, members of the SWAT Unit asked that operators be permitted to take their weapons home during off-duty hours. Post-incident reports in early 2009 stated that "SWAT operators responding from home are currently not allowed to transport their rifles with them," which "causes great delays in intelligence gathering and overwatch capabilities that is needed on all SWAT jobs."⁴ Another memo indicated that SWAT operators responding from home in personal vehicles faced heavy rush-hour traffic, taking up to ninety minutes to respond. One proposed solution was to allow all SWAT operators to "have take-home cars with the ability to transport their rifles to and from work" as it "would reduce response time to a SWAT job to less than 60 minutes."⁵ On March 16, 2009, the CPD issued Special Functions Group Unit Special Order 09-01, which authorized and directed SWAT operators "to transport their Department issued carbines and/or sniper rifles to and from home ... to maintain a constant state of preparedness and the ability to readily respond to critical incidents."⁶ Special Order 09-01 prohibited operators who transport their rifles from storing their rifles in a personal or department vehicle at any time.

The parties dispute whether Special Order 09-01 required SWAT operators to take their rifles home or whether they still were allowed to keep their rifles at Homan Square. On April 1, 2009, Lieutenant Mark Marianovich⁷ sent out revised Standard Operating Procedures, which "mandate[d] that its members keep their equipment in a state of readiness to respond quickly to a critical incident."⁸ The Standard Operating Procedures also detailed the off-hours vehicle use policies and procedures. CPD assigned and issued some vehicles for use beyond normal hours to give SWAT operators the ability to respond to off-hours critical incidents. The goal was for SWAT operators "to be able to respond to the scene of a critical incident within one hour of the callout."⁹ Additionally, the policy placed restrictions on the use of the department vehicle. For example, the vehicles were only to be used for travel to and from work and for critical incident response from home; they were not to be used for personal or other family business. An April 2009 report observed that "[a]lthough many operators were responding to the job in their personal vehicles, they responded to the scene with their rifles and equipment already in their possession."¹⁰ Additionally, the operators "did not have to wait until the trucks arrived on scene in order to quickly deploy to their positions."¹¹

In December 2010, CPD issued all SWAT operators take-home vehicles. Lieutenant Raymond Hamilton instructed operators who were issued take-home vehicles to move their equipment kits and rifles to their assigned vehicles. With take-home vehicles, the operators were no longer authorized to store their personal equipment kits inside the equipment room or to leave their CPD rifles on the weapons truck unless the operator was on furlough or out of town. Sergeants had the responsibility to ensure strict adherence to these directives. Lieutenant Hamilton further reiterated that equipment must be secured and that weapons were never to be left in their vehicles while off duty.

If an operator wanted an exception to the prohibition against storing rifles on the weapons truck, the officer had to secure the permission of a lieutenant. Plaintiff Jesus Cano testified that Lieutenant Marianovich permitted him to store his rifle at Homan Square while off-duty because he had small children at home and did not have a safe in which to store his rifle. If Officer Cano responded to an off-duty call-out, he would meet the weapons truck at the incident site or first pick up his weapon directly from Homan Square. Lieutenant Tom Lamb testified that he was aware of officers who stored their equipment at Homan Square and of at least five operators who stored their rifles on the weapons truck that went to each call-out.

In March 2011, CPD headquarters recalled many department vehicles that it had assigned previously to SWAT officers, leaving the SWAT Unit with an insufficient number of vehicles to permit each officer to use one for commuting. This situation resurrected the issue of where operators relying on personal vehicles could store their gear and rifles. Lieutenant Lamb expressed concern that, without having their weapons and gear with them, operators would have to drive all the way to Homan Square to get their equipment before meeting at the incident site or would have to wait at the incident site until the weapons truck arrived with their rifles. On March 21, 2011, Lieutenant Lamb emailed the SWAT Unit:

No equipment will be stored in the SWAT cage, cleaning room, or equipment room. Per SOP each operator must have their [sic] equipment with them [sic] in a state of readiness. If an operator has reasonable

...