The State Supreme Court just issued a decision on a dispute involving Thurston County and the payment of overtime to employees. You can read the article at the source here.
"Published February 24, 2008

The Olympian
Court rejects jail staff’s pay complaint
The state Supreme Court has rejected a claim by Thurston County jail staff members about when checks for overtime pay are issued.

Four officers — Gene Champagne, Cary Brown, Roland Knorr and Christopher Scanlon — sued the county for its practice of waiting an extra pay period to pay overtime.

In its majority ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals, which had dismissed the claim.

The Supreme Court ruled that the delayed payment of wages was not willful. The court also ruled that the delayed payment does not make the county liable under wage laws.
"We were satisfied with the results of the court's decision, which was basically a unanimous decision in favor of the county," Don Krupp, the county's chief administrative officer, said Sunday night. "It means we can move forward and put this issue to bed."

Krupp did not have specifics on the cost of the case, but said, "even when you succeed in the court you still have to spend money on attorney fees and depositions, and those costs are paid by the taxpayers. It's a consequence of something like this, and it's unfortunate."
In September, when the case was argued, Portland-based lawyer Will Aitchison told the state Supreme Court that under three wage laws the county should not wait an extra month before paying overtime. He said that by delaying payment, Thurston County in effect willfully denied pay.

But the county's lawyer, Doug Smith, a Seattle labor law expert, told justices that the jail officers' claim had no basis under the law allowing double damages, because no payment was ever willfully withheld.
"The one thing that is undisputed is … they have been paid all of their wages on a fixed and known schedule," Smith said, adding at one point that workers knew to a penny and on the date how much they would be paid — one pay period after the overtime and other specialty pay was earned.

The decision in favor of the county read, in part: "The county's regular practice is to pay its employees additional pay at the end of the month subsequent to the month in which it is earned. ... this system complies with the provision in the governing collective bargaining agreement ... " and "Champagne was paid all due regular and additional pay, and thus, does not have a cause of action" under the Minimum Wage Act.”

Jeff Brigham