1. Do you agree with the court that IAB’s involvement constituted retaliation? Why or why not?

2. To what extent did the police department culture play a role in this decision?

3. What steps could the police department have taken to prevent these actions from constituting retaliation?

Issue: Whether the involvement of the Internal Affairs Bureau in an investigation of police department FSLA violations constitutes retaliation, in violation of the FLSA. 

Facts: A group of police officers sued their police department for violations of the FLSA, specifically for failing to pay them for overtime. In the course of that lawsuit, the police department ordered its Internal Affairs Bureau to become involved, both by collecting various documents and by attending depositions. The officers claimed that IAB’s involvement constituted retaliation in the form of intimidation, which is prohibited by the FLSA, and they sought a preliminary injunction stopping the involvement. The trial court granted the injunction and the police department appealed to the Second Circuit.

Decision: Using the McDonnell burden-shifting framework, the 2^nd Circuit found that the link between the NYPD’s actions and the participation of the officers in the FLSA lawsuit was “self-evident,” and therefore affirmed the trial court’s finding that the IAB’s involvement was retaliatory.