Reich v. State of N.Y.
| Citation | 3 F.3d 581 |
| Decision Date | 23 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1585,1586,D,s. 1585 |
| Parties | 126 Lab.Cas. P 33,014, 1 Wage & Hour Cas. 2d (BNA) 950 Robert B. REICH, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellant. Gerald J. LONG; Paul L. Piwinski; Denis J. Donovan; Robert P. Faynor; John J. Tonzi; Donald E. Brandstetter; Douglas C. Field, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; John F. Ahern; William M. Ambler; Daniel J. Arcuri; Norman Ashbarry; Niles J. Balch; Jack R. Baum; Robert L. Boek; Robert T. Bramhall, Sr.; Charles T. Brown; Michael D. Byrne; Joel H. Campbell; Thomas P. Canastar; Nicholas A. Cerro; Denis J. Cimbal; Gary J. Corbett; Albert Cukierski; Gary J. Darstein; Dean C. Decker; Orlando M. D'Ella; Dominick DePaola, Jr.; Robert S. Dibble; Dennis P. Dougherty; Daniel D. Evans; Keith R. Fairchild; Russell C. Francis; Emanuel S. Friedman; Robert M. Fritzen; Dominick A. Froio, Jr.; Donald C. Geary; John W. Graham; Douglas E. Herrmann; Stanley A. Jung; Evelyn R. Kendrick; Robert J. Killough; Pascuale D. Lagatta; William L. Lefort; James E. Mathews; Norman J. Mattice; John R. Morlock; Lawrence J. Moylan; Christopher M. Murphy; Richard M. Owens; David Neil Paul; Leland J. Pavlot; Allen D. Piontkowski; Mario J. Restante; Eugene L. Rifenburg; James L. Rogers; Richard J. Sauer; Thomas L. Sears; William D. Slaughter; Douglas B. Smith; Roger W. Sykes; Scott W. Todd; Matthew A. Tynan; Michael Visco; Cornelius R. Walsh, Jr.; Robert D. Warner; Dexter B. Wassall; Stanley E. Weidman; Gerald J. Wendt; Milton A. White; Michael J. Yuzwak; John M. Moran; Christopher G. Allen; Thomas E. Alston, III; Craig Baldwin; Richard O. Bates; Lyle E. Baxter; Donald W. Berberich; Robert L. Beswick; Hugh L. Bigger; Sallie C. Bloomer; Joseph E. Bochnik; Alan T. Brock; Vincent T. Burke; William Caballero; Dennis M. Callahan; William T. Carey; Lawrence P. Chambers; Garfield Clark, Jr.; John M. Cleary, Jr.; Edward J. Collins; Frank Costa; Paul T. Decillis; Frank J. DeGennaro; Charles J. DePalma; Joseph |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit) |
Alan S. Kaufman, Albany, NY , for defendants-appellants State of NY, Thomas A. Constantine, and Div. of NY State Police.
Paul L. Frieden, Washington, DC (Judith E. Kramer, Monica Gallagher, William J. Stone, U.S. Dept. of Labor, William Kanter, Bruce G. Forrest, Civ. Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee Secretary of Labor.
Gregory K. McGillivary, Washington, DC (Thomas A. Woodley, Mulholland & Hickey, Washington, DC, Douglas L. Steele, Blitman & King, Syracuse, NY, Jan M. Smolak, Michaels & Bell, Auburn, NY, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees Gerald J. Long et al.
Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary L. Sharpe, U.S. Atty., William Kanter, Bruce G. Forrest, Appellate Staff, Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, submitted a brief on behalf of U.S., as intervenor.
Before: MESKILL and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges, and COVELLO, District Judge. *
The State of New York appeals from two orders entered in the United States District In separate actions, the Secretary of Labor and individual BCI Investigators sued the State of New York under the FLSA, challenging the State's failure to comply with the overtime and recordkeeping provisions of the Act. The State countered that it was under no obligation to pay the FLSA overtime rate to Investigators because they fall within an exemption to the Act for administrative employees. Alternatively, the State protested that the Tenth Amendment barred application of the Act to the BCI, and the Eleventh Amendment barred the relief sought by the private plaintiffs. Rejecting the State's statutory and constitutional arguments, the district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, denied the State's cross-motion for summary judgment, see Ahern v. New York, 807 F.Supp. 919 (N.D.N.Y.1992), and entered an order in each action enjoining the State from claiming the administrative exemption as to the Investigators. The State now appeals; and we affirm.
Court for the Northern District of New York (Con. J. Cholakis, J.) in procedurally separate--but substantively similar--actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The pivotal issue in both cases is whether Investigators of the New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI") fall within the administrative exemption to the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(a).
The New York State Police is a division of the State's Executive Department; and provisions governing the State Police are set forth in Article 11 of New York's Executive Law. Executive Law Secs. 31(4), 210-29 (McKinney 1993). Section 216 of that Article provides that members of the State Police may be assigned to a bureau of criminal investigation for the purpose of "preventing, investigating and detecting violations of the criminal laws of the state, and conducting such other investigations as may be provided for by law." Executive Law Sec. 216(1) (McKinney 1993). In order of seniority, BCI members are classified as: (1) Captains; (2) Lieutenants; (3) Senior Investigators; and (4) Investigators. Id.
There are about 4,000 sworn members of the State Police, and roughly 900 are plainclothes Senior Investigators or Investigators. The remaining 3,100 members constitute the "front line" uniform force of the State Police, 2,400 of whom are classified as State Troopers. The Troopers are the visible, day-to-day presence of the State Police: they drive marked State Police cars and, on a typical day, respond to automobile accidents,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knussman v. State of Md., Civil No. B-95-1255.
...... immunity by the state, or an abrogation of that immunity by Congress, a federal court may not entertain a citizen's suit against a state." Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581, 590 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1163, 114 S.Ct. 1187, 127 L.Ed.2d 537 (1994). In order to determine ......
-
Taylor v. Com. of Virginia
...... or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. . U.S. Const.Amend.XI. The ... clear in the FLSA its intention to override the Eleventh Amendment") (noting agreement with Reich v. New York, 3 F.3d 581, 590 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1163, 114 S.Ct. 1187, 127 ......
-
First Gibraltar Bank, FSB v. Morales, 93-8170
......Plaintiffs-Appellants, . v. . Dan MORALES, Atty. General, as Attorney General for the . State of Texas, et al., Defendants-Appellees. . No. 93-8170. . United States Court of Appeals, . Fifth ... See Reich v. New York, 3 F.3d 581, 589-90 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that a federal requirement that states pay ......
-
Mills v. State of Me.
......Department of Corrections, 21 F.3d 370, 372 (10th Cir.1994); Reich v. New York, 3 F.3d 581, 590-91 (2d Cir.1993); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1391 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc) ("Congress has made unmistakably clear ......
-
For Whom Does the Clock Tick Public Employers' Liability for Overtime Compensation Under Federal Law
...1992). Thus far, however, courts have rejected the invitation to bury Garcia and resurrect Usery. See e.g., Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581, 589-90 (2nd Cir.1993); Brinkman v. Dept. of Corr. of State of Kan., 804 F.Supp. 163, 164-65 (D.Kan.1992), aff'd --- F.3d ----, (1994 WL 117193)......