Russell v. Board Of County Commissioners

952 P.2d 492 (1997)

Free access to 20,000 Casebriefs

Nature Of The Case

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Facts

Ps commenced a breach-of-employment-contract action against Ds to recover overtime pay alleged to be due them under an at-will employment arrangement with the county. Ps argue that Ds, sitting as a personnel board adopted a personnel policy manual, which provides that county employees -- including 'law enforcement officers' -- shall be compensated for overtime hours and receive holiday work pay. Ps argue they are law enforcement officers within the meaning of the county's personnel policy. The statutory scheme governing county officers classifies the sheriff as an enforcement officer charged with keeping the peace, designates the sheriff and his deputies as the only 'peace officers' for county government, provides that each county officer shall have one 'first deputy' and classifies all others as 'second deputies.' Ps claim that these written policies which codified the prior practice of paying overtime Wages to county employees, have become a part of the at-will employment arrangement. According to the deputies, when they accepted the county's offer (in the handbook) of compensation for overtime worked, the county became contractually bound to pay according to the promised wage regime. Ps submit that the county is bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel and cannot now deny the overtime wages after they have performed the work. Ds deniy Ps, sheriff's deputies, are law enforcement officers within the meaning of the manual's overtime provisions. Ds' affidavits show that they intended by their March 12, 1992 adoption of the personnel policy to pay overtime (or compensatory time off) to the sheriff's employees acting in the capacity of jail personnel, but not to deputy sheriffs. Ds point to the disclaimer placed on the front of the handbook: THESE POLICIES ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH ANY EMPLOYEE. The lower court ruled for Ds and the appeals court reversed for Ps. Ds appealed.

Issues

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Holding & Decision

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal Analysis

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner

© 2025 Casebriefsco.com. All Rights Reserved.