SPRINGFIELD — The city of Westfield and 17 current Westfield Police Department officers who are suing it alleging they should have been paid “regular wages” when attending police academy have agreed to try and mediate the case being heard in Hampden County Superior Court.
“We’re trying to resolve the matter,” said Springfield-based attorney Jeffrey Morneau with Connor & Morneau who has been representing the officers who filed the lawsuit against the city in September 2024.
Morneau said he and the attorneys defending the city, Boston-based firm Seyfarth Shaw, have been having ongoing settlement discussions for the last several months.
“We agreed to hold off on any further action in attempt to reach a settlement,” Morneau said Monday about the joint motion filed on Nov. 11.
According to the joint motion: “After engaging in discovery and engaging in preliminary party-to-party settlement discussions, the parties have agreed to attempt to informally settle this matter, including in conjunction with related wage-and-hour case with the same counsel.”
The “related wage-and-hour case” is a lawsuit filed by Westfield Police officer Efrain Luna in U.S. District Court alleging the city had violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying him overtime.
On Oct. 6, Luna, who is also represented by Morneau, and the city filed a joint motion to stay the federal case pending mediation, which was granted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson two days later.
The judge hearing the Superior Court case has yet to rule on the joint motion filed by both parties to stay the lawsuit pending settlement negotiations.
The September 2024 lawsuit filed by the 17 officers against the city had three separate complaints referred to as counts.
Count 1 alleged that officers attending the police academy should have been paid the same wages as regular officers since they had been “appointed” to the position of “Police Officer” and the city was “obligated” to pay regular wages.
Count 2 was that the city didn’t pay the officers while they were attending the academy regular wages earned within seven days of the end of the pay period, which was essentially asking the court to find that the officers attending the academy should have been paid at least $21 an hour instead of $19 per hour while enrolled at the academy.
And in Count 3 the officers alleged the city was obligated to pay them because they provided “valuable services were provided to the city” — it is called a claim for quantum merit. Count 3 also includes the officers had a “reasonable expectation” of compensation for services, the city accepted the services provided by the officers, and a reasonable person would have expected compensation.
The city, through Seyfarth Shaw, denied the allegations in Count 1 — that the city was obligated to pay the officers regular wages — by questioning the legal conclusions used in the lawsuit.
For Count 2, the city again denied failing to pay the wages earned within seven days of the end of the pay period and denied the officers were entitled to damages.
For Count 3, the city denied that the officers had provided “valuable services” to the city because the allegation was “vague” and that the officers were paid what was owed to them.
The city also said it acted in good faith and with reasonable grounds to believe it was not violating the law.
It also made a motion to dismiss the officers’ lawsuit, which was denied last May.
Luna also filed his lawsuit in U.S. District Court in September 2024. In it, he alleged the city hadn’t paid him “time and a half” rates for work in excess of 40 hours in one week since July 2021.
According to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, law enforcement personnel are exempt from being paid overtime rates if the municipality opts in to what is known as a 29 USC § 207(k) exemption. With that exemption in place, officers must work 171 hours in 28 days, or more than 42.75 hours in a seven-day work period, before an employer must pay the higher rate.
In Luna’s lawsuit, he alleges the city has not established or adopted a 207(k) work period exemption, and therefore he should qualify for overtime rates under the same rules that govern most wage-earners.
The city, through Seyfarth Shaw, answered that allegation and over 20 others in its response, including whether the city had “adopted” or “established” the 29 USC § 207(k) exemption.
“[The city] denies the allegations … responding further … that it did establish an alternative work period under 29 USC § 207(k) exemption,” according to the city’s response.
In one of the complaints in Luna’s lawsuit, he alleges the city is “an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,” which is a required provision of the federal statute that defines which workers are entitled to overtime.
The city responded that it “denies the allegations … because it is not a commercial enterprise and is not regularly engaged in the production of goods.”
As another justification for the lawsuit, Luna alleged he worked for more than 40 hours in at least one workweek, which the city said it was unable to respond to because the allegation is “vague” and that Luna failed to identify any week or weeks he worked more than 40 hours.
And that Luna’s “entitlement to overtime, if any, is based on an alternative work period” as defined by 29 USC § 207(k), “not based on a 40-hour workweek,” according to the city’s response.
The joint motion related to the officers’ lawsuit requested that the judge allow both parties to attempt to settle the lawsuit by at least Feb. 2.
“The parties submit that good cause exists for a stay to facilitate their efforts to resolve this case,” according to the joint motion.
In both cases, the officers are seeking triple damages and have the city pay all attorney fees.
The city of Westfield’s Law Department declined to comment on the decision.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
