The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case involving compensation claims from members of the Louisville Metro Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactical (SWAT) Team. The decision, rendered on September 18, 2026, affects current and former officers who argued they should be paid for time spent on-call. This ruling is crucial as it sets a precedent for how on-call hours are compensated in law enforcement, impacting similar cases across the state.
The case, Eric S. Culver v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government (2024-CA-1174), involved six SWAT team members who claimed they were entitled to compensation for each hour spent on-call under Kentucky's wage and hour laws, as well as a collective bargaining agreement with their employer. The appeals court's decision follows a jury trial that found in favor of the Metro Government, denying the officers' claims for compensation.
The appellants in this case, referred to as SWAT1, included Eric S. Culver, Brent Routzahn, Jason Poston, Larry Dale Massey Jr., Scott Gregory Walker, and William D. Pearson III. They argued that the time they spent on-call should be considered work time, thus entitling them to pay. Their claims were initially tried in front of a jury, which ruled in favor of the Louisville Metro Government, leading to the appeal. The case also included a cross-appeal from the Metro Government, which sought to challenge the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions and the denial of a directed verdict.
During the trial, the jury was instructed to determine whether the SWAT team members were working while on-call. The court emphasized that to be compensated, the officers needed to demonstrate that their on-call assignments were predominantly for the benefit of the employer and that the restrictions placed on them prevented them from effectively using their time for personal pursuits. The jury ultimately found that the officers were not entitled to compensation, leading to the appeal.
The court ruled that the trial court did not err in denying the officers' motions for summary judgment and did not abuse its discretion regarding jury instructions. Judge L. Jones stated, "None of the parties were entitled to summary judgment. Further, the trial court did not commit error with regard to the jury instructions, nor did it abuse its discretion regarding admission of evidence." This affirmation of the trial court's ruling means that the SWAT team members will not receive compensation for their on-call time.
The ruling has significant implications for law enforcement officers across Kentucky. It clarifies the legal standards for compensating on-call time and reinforces the idea that being on-call does not automatically equate to being at work. The decision may discourage similar claims from other law enforcement personnel who may seek compensation for on-call hours in the future. Additionally, it highlights the importance of clearly defined roles and expectations for on-call employees.
Looking ahead, the possibility of an appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court remains. The appellants may seek to challenge the ruling further, especially given the potential impact on future cases involving on-call compensation. However, details regarding any pending appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence how on-call work is viewed in various sectors, not just law enforcement, as similar disputes may arise in other fields where employees are required to be on-call.