By Brendan Riley, The Associated Press
Carson City, Nev. (AP) -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday in favor of a former Carson City sheriff’s deputy who argued she wasn’t paid enough for all the off-duty time she spent training her police dog, “Scout.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling favors Paula Leever, who worked as a deputy from 1992 to late 1999. That included “canine duty” starting in 1995.
Leever said that as part of her duties as a canine officer she had to groom, feed, bath, exercise and train “Scout” during off-duty hours -- and on average that took 28 hours a week, in addition to her regular shift.
Rather than pay overtime, Leever’s employer negotiated a flat $60 for two weeks of such care by any officers assigned a police dog. The agreement was worked out with the Carson City Sheriff’s Protective Association in 1995.
Leever, represented by attorney Day Williams, appealed after U.S. Magistrate Robert McQuaid of Reno ruled against her. He held the agreement may not have adequately covered the off-duty work by canine officers -- but it was reasonable “because it was negotiated at arms-length between the city and the union.”
A 3-judge 9th Circuit Court panel reversed McQuaid, saying that such agreements must at least “take into account some approximation of the number of hours actually worked by the employee or that the employee could reasonably be required to work.”
“The salary differential in Leever’s contract bears no resemblance to the compensation to which she would be entitled in overtime pay based on the number of hours she claims she actually worked,” the circuit court panel said.
The court said it’s not suggesting that the rate of pay for dog care at home should equal an officer’s on-duty pay rate, but the city “was required, at minimum, to make a reasonable investigation of the number of off-duty hours ... and to take that figure into account when negotiating the agreement.”
The panel said the city “did not consider all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the agreement in reaching its conclusions that the agreement was reasonable.”