Gregory G. Petersen, Chief Trial Counsel for the Petersen Law Firm, A Law Corporation, today announced that the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department ("LAPD") must pay for the time spent by officers at the beginning and end of their shifts while donning and doffing their equipment, uniforms and safety gear. The Court's ruling, issued May 5, 2009, applies to three Los Angeles Police Officer overtime lawsuits, which are named Alaniz, et al. v. City of Los Angeles ("Alaniz"), Mata, et al. v. City of Los Angeles ("Mata") and Nolan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles ("Nolan"). These lawsuits seek compensation for LAPD officers holding the rank of Lieutenant and below for all work performed before and after the officers' regularly scheduled shifts, interrupted rest periods and other activities that are routinely not compensated.

These three lawsuits, all originally filed by Mr. Petersen, affect all uniformed personnel of the LAPD. Subsequent to the filing of the Alaniz lawsuit, Greg Hafif with the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, joined the plaintiffs' team of attorneys and serves as co-counsel in the Alaniz, Mata and Nolan lawsuits, as well as Edwards v. City of Long Beach and Reed v. County of Orange, similar FLSA overtime lawsuits filed on behalf of Long Beach Police Officers and Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, respectively.

Mr. Petersen commented, "Management hostility about the officers' complaints that the LAPD illegally refuses to pay overtime has been displayed in expressions of anger from Chief Bratton. Chief Bratton went so far as to prepare and distribute a video tape in which he accused officers seeking their pay of being unworthy of employment as LAPD officers. Despite the City's repeated losses in cases prosecuted by the Petersen Law firm, since 1993 in the federal courts resulting from the department's failure to properly pay officers for their work, the current management of the LAPD does not discipline the management members who condone or allow the continued failure of the department to properly pay its officers."

Mr. Petersen added, "In a recent letter to the Secretary of Labor, I have asked the Department of Labor to investigate the Chief of Police and the department for the intimidation of witnesses and others seeking to enforce their federal rights. Litigation concerning the unlawful and illegal coercion is pending in the State and Federal courts. The Los Angeles Police Department's response to the long-standing and continuing failures of the department's managers and executives to properly pay officers for all hours worked is to threaten and intimidate the officers themselves."

Mr. Petersen concluded "For years, overtime has been one of the biggest expenses in the LAPD budget. The Department and City leaders choose to incur such overtime rather than hire additional officers and properly staff the department. It is a tragic irony in today's economic environment that the City continues to understaff its police department and demand that officers work excess hours without pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act came about toward the end of the great depression. One of the primary goals of the FLSA, when it was drafted, was to increase the ranks of the employed by reducing the abusive tactics by employers and encouraging them, through the use of penalties, to employ the proper number of people to do the job."

Mr. Petersen has been involved in wage and hour litigation on behalf of LAPD officers since 1993 and has recovered approximately fifty million dollars in prior litigation from the City for its violations of the federal wage hour laws. Mr. Petersen, who has represented LAPD officers since the late 1970's in matters concerning their employment, was recognized as one of Southern California's Top Lawyers in the Los Angles Magazine's Super Lawyers section. More information on the decision in these three LAPD overtime lawsuits can be found on the firm's website at: http://www.PetersenLawFirm.com/litigation.html.