Richard Haka v. County of Sacramento Robert E. Kolgard, Probation Officer

81 F.3d 168 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard HAKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; Robert E. Kolgard, Probation Officer, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16221. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 14, 1996. 1 Decided April 3, 1996. 1 Before: THOMPSON and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WILSON, District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM 3 I. BACKGROUND 2 Appellant Richard Haka ("Haka") was employed by Appellee the County of Sacramento ("County") as a probation assistant and later as a deputy probation officer. At all relevant times of his employment, he was assigned to the Boys' Ranch facility. After this court held in Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir.1990), that Los Angeles probation officers were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, County began treating employees such as Haka as covered by the FLSA. Because Bratt held that covered employees were entitled to time and a half overtime benefits…