Christensen V | EssayIvy.com

Running head: CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY 1

Christensen V Harris County

Name

Institution

CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY 2

Introduction

Christensen v. Harris County is a case which reaches the level of the Supreme Court

of America whose policy holds that employees should get scheduled time off from work.

According to the case, the purpose of getting scheduled time off from work is to evade the

accruing time off which is a provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Supreme

Court addresses the problem of this case, and the problem is whether the FLSA should allow

public employers to prompt their employees to make use of their accumulated compensatory

time (Cihon, 2000). The permission should also come with an agreement that authorizes the

public employer to compel the employees to use their compensatory time. This paper

provides an overview of the case Christensen v. Harris County, and the status of the case as

of now. The case analysis combines the overview and the problem to come up with viable

options which can solve the identified problem.

Parameters and Limitations

The parameters of the case are that compensatory time is required as it provides an

employee with time off from work. FLSA provides that the time off is fully paid, and the

employee gets granted a lieu of cash for any overtime work (Costa, 2014). The second

parameter is that the Act provides a statutory cap which specifies the limit of the

compensatory hours which an employee accrues before an employer is obliged to provide the

employee with cash compensation for the overtime worked. Conversely, the limitations in the

case between Christensen and Harris County is that even a public employer should pay the

employee for any overtime worked. According to the FLSA, there are no exceptions of either

a government or private institution (Roberts, 2017). Another limitation is that there lacks a

threshold to determine when to take the leave from the employee's side. The above means

CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY 3

that the employer has the power to decide when the leave should be taken because it has to be

convenient to the company.

Overview

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) OF 1938 allows every governmental entity to

compensate any employee who works for overtime. According to the FLSA, the government

should grant them compensatory time in the form of a lieu of funds payment (Cihon, 2000).

The FLSA is clear that if the employee does not make use of the accumulated time for

compensation, then the government entity or the employer should be ready to pay some cash

as a way to compensate the individual. To this effect, Harris County in Texas finds out that

there are scores of its deputy sheriffs who have a lot of hours in terms of compensatory time

which has not been accrued. In fear of the crisis in their budget, Harris County adopts a

policy where their employees are ordered to come up with a schedule of compensatory time

at different specified times (Cihon, 2000). The purpose of coming up with this schedule is to

reduce the bulk of accrued time which may require cash compensation if not taken care of.

On the other hand, Edward Christensen together with 128 more deputy Sheriffs of

Harris County in Texas decides that they have a right to make use of their compensatory time

whenever they see it fit. As a result, the sheriffs sue their employer claiming that the Fair

Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lacks the allowance that the employers can compel their

employees to make use of compensatory time without an arrangement that gives the

employer powers to do the same. The Sheriffs efforts bear fruit because the District Court

rules in their favor as it concludes that the policy is violating the FLSA of 1938 (Cihon,

2000). The Court of Appeal revises the case and observes that FLSA does not address the

issue that the Sheriffs bring up, and so it prohibits Harris County from achieving and

implementing its compensatory time.

CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY 4

Status

The status of the case is that there are some issues that arise after the case is dealt

with. One of the crucial issues that come up is whether the Sixth Amendment which

guarantees unanimous verdicts by impartial juries demands that a court removes jurors during

deliberations (Roberts, 2017). The issue is to be taken with seriousness because the records

may disclose a possibility that removal requests stem from the view of the juror. In most

cases, the removal request comes after allegations that the juror did not conduct themselves in

the right manner that relates to the merits of the case. Another issue that arises and is the

status of the case is whether title III of the Safe Streets Act and the Omnibus’ Crime Control

of 1968 may require suppression (Cihon, 2000). If the suppression is required, it should be

created with the sole intention of committing a tortuous or criminal act.

The opinion that Justice Clarence Thomas makes about the case in Court 6-3 holds

that there is no section in the FLSA or any implementing regulation that prohibits public

employers from compelling the manipulation of compensatory time. According to Justice

Thomas, the Fair Labor Standards Act observes that an employer may prompt an employee to

take some time off from work (Roberts, 2017). On the contrary, the employer can make use

of the money that it would have paid as wages or salary to cash out any accrued time for

compensation. The Court also notes that the compelled manipulation of compensation time

has to do with practicing both steps at the same time (Costa, 2014).

Solutions

One of the viable solutions to this case is that the employer should avoid overtime

cases unless where it is extremely necessary. The employer should come up with a schedule

where the employers work within the required time and deliver a quality job (Costa, 2014).

The above will ensure that there is no compensatory time that the firm will have to organize

CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY 5

for employees who have worked overtime, and if so it will be minimal. Another solution is to

always come up with a schedule to offer leaves to the employees who have worked for

overtime (Roberts, 2017). The solution will help the organization stay in good books with the

government and also become fair to the employees. In the same way, the solution will help to

evade the chances of paying compensatory cash to the affected employees. A good number of

organizations have a lawyer as an employee to advice on different matters, and those which

lack should employ one. Employing a lawyer who will offer legal advice to the firm will help

the company avoid hefty fines and use the funds to grow itself (Costa, 2014). With the three

solutions explained above, firms are bound to perform their duties without much struggle or

bearing of consequences.

CHRISTENSEN V. HARRIS COUNTY 6

References

Cihon, C. (2000). Employment and Labor Law, 9th ed. South-Western Cengage Learning.

Costa, D. L. (2014). Hours of work and the Fair Labor Standards Act: A study of retail and

wholesale trade, 1938–1950. ILR Review, 53(4), 648-664.

Roberts, R. (2017). The Judicial Response to the Presidential Polarization of the

Administrative State. The American Review of Public Administration. Retrieved from

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0275074018754888

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."