Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

In an unusual ruling, Pennsylvania federal judge Michael M. Baylson (i) invoked a court’s inherent powers to manage its docket in dismissing with prejudice a long-running collective action lawsuit against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) but also (ii) awarded—after a second hung jury—victory to Uber on the merits by granting its Rule 50(b) motion for judgement as a matter of law.

We recently posted an article on Hunton’s Retail Law Resource blog regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant cert E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera.  In that case, the Supreme Court is expected to clarify the burden of proof that employers must meet in order to prove that employees are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Most companies know the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employers to pay employees a minimum hourly wage plus overtime, unless an exemption applies. What may be surprising, however, is how broadly the FLSA and courts applying it define who is an “employer.”

On April 29, 2024, in compliance with President Biden’s October 2023 Executive Order addressing artificial intelligence, the Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division (WHD) issued guidance regarding the potential risks posed by employers using AI tools to monitor or augment worker productivity to violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published the final version of a rule originally proposed in September 2023, raising the salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) exemption for executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees and the total annual compensation level for the highly compensated employee exemption. The final rule also provides for periodic, automatic increases going forward. So, what should employers know about the final rule, and how can they stay compliant with this shifting landscape?

On March 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed two separate district court decisions addressing how pizza delivery drivers should be reimbursed for their vehicle-related expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The underlying cases involved minimum wage claims under the FLSA.  In both cases, the drivers alleged that their employers had not sufficiently reimbursed them for the expenses they incurred while using their personal vehicles to make deliveries, resulting in the employees earning less than the minimum wage.  One employer ...

The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) recently published a final rule on the definition of “independent contractor” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on January 9, 2024. This rule introduces a six-factor "economic realities" test, replacing the 2021 rule and aiming to bring clarity to the classification of workers as independent contractors or employees.

Recently, in Restaurant Law Center, et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas affirmed the validity of a new Department of Labor (DOL) rule, known as the “80-20-30” or “dual jobs” rule, which limits the ability of employers to satisfy a portion of tipped employees’ wages with earned tips.

On May 19, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit became the second circuit court to reject a familiar two-step certification procedure for collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In Clark v. A&L Home Care and Training Center, LLC, the court held that FLSA plaintiffs who seek to represent other employees in a collective action must demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that other employees they seek to represent are “similarly situated” to the lead plaintiffs.  

In a recent decision in Perez v. Express Scripts, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey determined that plaintiff and a conditionally certified class of 200 members in a misclassification class action were exempt given that they were highly compensated.

Avid readers of this blog will recall three prior postings about a wage and hour dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) between an off-shore tool-pusher, Michael Hewitt, and his prior employer, Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc.  As background, those articles can be found here: 

• Supreme Court Will Consider Helix Day Rate Pay Case
• Cert Filed in Hope Supreme Court Will Reevaluate Fifth Circuit’s FLSA OT Ruling
• Upcoming Fifth Circuit Hearing to Address FLSA Day-Rate Issues

At the core of the dispute was whether Hewitt was entitled to receive an overtime rate for hours ...

On February 9, 2023, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division issued a Field Assistance Bulletin concerning the application of certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to teleworking employees.  The bulletin provides guidance on compensable time, breaks for nursing employees who are teleworking, and FMLA eligibility rules for remote employees. 

In a recent ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois determined that a bartender’s evidence – affidavits from herself and her supervisor – were insufficient to obtain conditional certification on her Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim. Plaintiff Alexa Roberts brought suit against One Off Hospitality Group and several of its restaurants and management personnel (“Defendants”) alleging that she was deprived of wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”). Plaintiff alleged that she was required to clock in and out at the times of her scheduled shift even if she worked in excess of those times so that Defendants would not have to pay overtime. She further alleged that Defendants were aware that other employees were also working off the clock.

Voters in the District of Columbia, Nebraska, and Nevada overwhelmingly approved minimum wage-related ballot initiatives during this year’s midterm elections.  The political movement to establish a $15.00 minimum wage started in 2012 when 200 New York City fast food workers walked off the job demanding better pay and union rights.  Despite inaction by the federal government in the subsequent decade, there continues to be bipartisan support for minimum wage increases, particularly at the state level, as illustrated by the success of these three ballot measures.

On October 24, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC holding that the time employees spend booting up their computers is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). The decision reverses a 2021 Nevada district court’s decision that came to the opposite conclusion, holding that time spent initiating computers was not compensable.

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is expected to propose new rules on independent contractor classification and overtime entitlement requirements in the coming weeks.  The proposals would alter the qualifications for certain employees to receive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act when they work in excess of 40 hours in one week.

Last Thursday, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published in the Federal Register its newly-proposed rule regarding independent contractor vs. employee classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”).  Businesses have anticipated the release of this proposed rule from the Biden administration’s DOL since the DOL withdrew a more employer-friendly, Trump-era independent contractor rule in May 2021 that had not yet gone into effect.

Court watchers following the ripple effects of groundbreaking wage and hour opinion Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Swales”) may have gained their first insight into the Supreme Court’s thought process following Chief Justice John Robert’s refusal to pause a conditional collective action certification in Maximus Inc. v. Thomas, et al., No. 22A164, currently pending in the Eastern District of Virginia and following this decision and a failed appeal from the Fourth Circuit.

Earlier this month, Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the “Wage Theft Prevention and Wage Recovery Act” (“Act”). This proposed legislation seeks to amend the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in several key ways.

First, the Act would require all employers to provide regular pay stubs and initial salary disclosures.

Second, the Act would change wage recovery by requiring payment at an employee’s agreed-upon wage rate, rather than at the minimum wage or minimum overtime wage rates, which the FLSA has never done and has traditionally been within ...

On April 11, 2022 Governor Glenn Youngkin signed HB 1173 into law, which replaces various provisions of the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (VOWA) with provisions largely consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

On May 2, 2022, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Helix Energy Solutions Group Incorporated after Helix lost before the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a sharply-divided opinion last year.  In Hewitt v. Helix Energy Solutions Grp., Inc., 15 F.4th 289 (5th Cir. 2021), the Fifth Circuit held 12-6 that employers must guarantee their day-rate workers a minimum weekly payment that is reasonably related to the amount those workers actually earn in that timespan for their workers to be exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements.  This minimum weekly payment must be a predetermined amount that does not change based on the number of days or hours actually worked, if the employer wishes to enjoy the FLSA’s exemptions to paying its day-rate workers overtime.

A small but growing number of employees are asking for cryptocurrency as a form of compensation.  Whether a substitute for wages or as part of an incentive package, offering cryptocurrency as compensation has become a way for some companies to differentiate themselves from others.  In a competitive labor market, this desire to provide innovative forms of compensation is understandable.  But any company thinking about cryptocurrency needs to be aware of the risks involved, including regulatory uncertainties and market volatility.

On September 9, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued a 12-6 opinion in Hewitt v. Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., 15 F.4th 289 (5th Cir. 2021) that clarified the requirements for day rate workers to fall within one of the FLSA’s exemptions from overtime payment.  This ruling was hotly-contested because it made clear that employers must take additional steps to properly classify their day rate workers as exempt employees, even when those employees clearly exceed the financial threshold of the highly compensated exemption.  Many expect the decision to substantially affect the course of day rate FLSA litigation in the Fifth Circuit, especially misclassification disputes within the energy industry.

On December 13, 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued its long-awaited decision determining that the Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute, G.L. c. 149, § 148B (“Independent Contractor Statute”), which establishes the three-pronged “ABC” test used to classify workers as independent contractors or employees – and provides for a rebuttable presumption that workers are employees unless the purported employer proves otherwise – is not the applicable standard to determine whether an entity is a joint employer.

On August 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to hold that where nonresident plaintiffs opt into a putative collective action under the FLSA, a court may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over claims unrelated to the defendant’s conduct in the forum state.  Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc. (Case No. 20-5947) (6th Cir).  The next day, the Eighth Circuit reached the same conclusion in a separate case.  Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC, d/b/a HCI Group (Case No. 20-2874) (8th Cir).

We previously blogged about how ...

On July 29, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor filed a final rule rescinding the Trump-era “Joint Employer Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act” rule (29 CFR part 791), which went into effect on March 16, 2020.

Most employers know the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires employees to be paid time-and-one-half for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek unless an exemption applies.  But what some employers don’t realize is, for the most-commonly-used overtime exemptions to apply, employees must not only satisfy various “duties” tests, but they must also be paid on a “salary basis” at not less than $684 per week.  Payment on a salary basis means an employee regularly receives a predetermined amount of compensation each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent, basis.

Following the flood of employee-friendly legislation during the Virginia General Assembly’s 2020 session, which included a significantly strengthened wage payment law that we previously discussed, the 2021 session resulted in the passage of yet another new wage-related law that employers need to be aware of.  This new law – the “Virginia Overtime Wage Act” – goes into effect on July 1, 2021 and will usher in the first overtime pay requirement in Virginia’s history.

In a recent post, we wrote about a final rule issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) during the last days of the Trump administration addressing the appropriate test for classifying independent contractors under the FLSA. In the post, we noted that the future of the rule was in question because it was not set to go into effect until March 8, 2021. This delayed implementation provided an opportunity for the incoming Biden administration to freeze or withdraw the rule.

For over 30 years, most district courts throughout the country have used a two-step conditional certification process to govern certification of collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  But in its recent and game-changing opinion, Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, the Fifth Circuit rejected that two-step process and laid out a stricter framework for FLSA collective actions.

An Alabama federal judge granted AutoZone's request to dismiss nearly 500 current and former store managers from a nationwide collective action that the national auto-parts chain had misclassified them as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and denied them overtime, holding those plaintiffs had missed the three-year statute of limitations and that plaintiffs had failed to establish equitable tolling should apply to save their claims.

For decades, most federal courts have held the view that private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims are unenforceable unless they are approved by the Department of Labor or a court.  However, as we have reported in prior posts, some federal courts have recently begun to challenge this long-held view and have taken a more flexible approach that treats FLSA settlements no differently than settlements or releases involving other employment law claims.  In the recent decision of Stuntz v. Lion Elastomers, L.L.C., the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals continued that trend and held that a union’s private settlement of FLSA claims on behalf of bargaining unit employees precludes individual bargaining unit employees from later bringing their own FLSA claims.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently released a proposed rule seeking to clarify independent contractor vs. employee status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).   The proposed rule seeks to simplify the “economic realities” test currently applied by federal courts in various forms.  “The Department’s proposal aims to bring clarity and consistency to the determination of who’s an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia explained in the DOL's news release.  “Once finalized, it will make it easier to identify employees covered by the Act, while respecting the decision other workers make to pursue the freedom and entrepreneurialism associated with being an independent contractor.”

Last month, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York invalidated portions of the Department of Labor’s Final Rule on joint employment, holding that parts of the Final Rule conflicted with the statutory language of the FLSA and chiding the DOL for failing to adequately explain why the Final Rule departed from the DOL’s own prior interpretations.

Last week, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) provided clarity regarding issues of remote work and remote learning.

First, the DOL issued guidance regarding employers’ obligation to track the work hours of employees who are working remotely due to COVID-19 or due to an already existing telework or remote work arrangement.

This month, the Southern District of Florida declined to certify a nationwide class of Denny’s servers alleging the restaurant chain had violated the minimum wage and tip credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on the basis that the named plaintiff failed to provide enough evidence that the servers were similarly situated.

Plaintiff Lindsay Rafferty worked as a server at a Denny’s restaurant in Akron, Ohio from February 2012 through October 2018.  On November 13, 2019, Rafferty filed a lawsuit against Denny’s alleging that the restaurant paid its employee servers a sub-minimum hour wage under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and that Denny’s required its servers to perform non-tipped “sidework.”

A federal district court in Florida recently declined to conditionally certify a nationwide collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) because the plaintiff did not show sufficient evidence that she was similarly situated to other restaurant managers who wanted to join.

On May 19, 2020, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its final rule likely expanding the FLSA’s Section 7(i) overtime exemption for commission-based workers in retail and service industries by withdrawing the long-standing, historical list of businesses that the DOL identified as falling within or outside of what it deemed to be a retail or service establishment.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) released guidance Tuesday regarding the implementation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, including details on how employers can determine whether they are covered by the Act.

500 Employee Threshold

One of the most common questions among employers regarding the Families First Act, which Congress passed last week to provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave for coronavirus-related reasons, involved how to count employees towards the 500 employee threshold for coverage under the law.  If an employer has 500 or more employees, then it is not covered by the law.  The DOL provided three key pieces of guidance to help employers determine whether they are covered.

The CDC has recommended temperature checks for workers in some counties.  Governors are beginning to make the same recommendation.  This step already is in place for many healthcare workers.  Now, employers in other industries are considering whether they should conduct temperature checks on employees who are reporting to work and send them home to avoid possible spread of the virus on the employer’s premises.

In an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19, many employers are permitting, and in some cases requiring, employees to work from home. One unforeseen consequence of requiring employees to work from home is some jurisdictions mandate that employers reimburse their employees for certain expenses incurred as a result of their employment. Accordingly, employers may be required to reimburse employees for reasonable expenses they incur for equipment and services necessary to work from home, such as cell phone, internet, and computer usage expenses.

COVID-19 has disrupted the global economy and employers may soon face the need to reduce expenses associated with exempt employees. Employers can place exempt employees on furlough, or, in some cases, reduce salaries and hours, without jeopardizing the FLSA exemption, but exceptions may need to be made for certain employees on work-authorized visas.

The Department of Labor issued two opinion letters on Tuesday in response to specific inquiries that may nonetheless provide some clarity for employers in general.

The first letter was in response to an inquiry from an employer that offers its employees a non-discretionary lump sum bonus of $3,000 (in addition to their regular hourly rate) for completing a 10-week training program.  During the training program, the employees may work more than 40 hours in a given week and the employer requested an opinion from the DOL on the proper method for calculating overtime pay.  In response, the DOL stated that the $3,000 bonus must be included in the regular rate of pay (for purposes of calculating overtime) “as it is an inducement for employees to complete the ten-week training period.”  The DOL then explained that the bonus should be divided into ten $300 increments to be added to the employees’ pay for each week of the training program for purpose of making the overtime calculation.

Earlier today, the United States Department of Labor announced a long-awaited final rule to take effect on January 1, 2020 updating the earnings threshold to $35,568 necessary for employees to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) “white collar” exemptions.   The DOL estimates that 1.2 million additional workers will be entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay as a result of this increase in the salary basis.

In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit rejected the view of the United States Department of Labor, ruling that incentive payments from third parties are not necessarily included in the calculation of an employee’s overtime rate.

In Secretary United States Department of Labor v. Bristol Excavating, Inc., No. 17-3663, 2019 WL 3926937 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019) (“Bristol”), the Court of Appeals overturned a District Court’s order holding that all incentive payments made by third parties must be included in an employee’s overtime rate under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The unanimous Third Circuit panel held that the understanding of the employer and employee determines whether third-party payments should be included in the overtime rate.

The Fifth Circuit recently joined a majority of its sister circuits in holding that the question of whether arbitration agreements authorize class arbitration should be decided by courts.

In 20/20 Communications v. Lennox Crawford, the Fifth Circuit held that the availability of class-wide arbitration in a Fair Labor Standards Act case is a “gateway issue” of arbitrability.  The court reasoned that the fundamental differences between individual and class-wide arbitration required judicial determination as to which approach was available, absent “clear and unmistakable” language in the agreement delegating the decision to the arbitrator.

Massachusetts’ highest court, The Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), recently issued its long awaited decision in Sullivan v. Sleepy’s LLC, SJC-12542, in which the SJC responded to certified questions of first impression from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case is particularly important for businesses which pay employees through commissions or draws (i.e., advances on commissions), particularly in the retail context where the ruling departs considerably from federal law.

Originally published in The Business Journals, Jayde Brown and Alan Marcius discuss proactive steps small businesses can take to avoid common employment-related legal problems.  Read more here. 

The Department of Labor earlier this month proposed employer-friendly amendments to its rules regarding joint employer liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the DOL proposed the adoption of a four-factor test to assess joint employer status under the FLSA.  The test would consider an employer’s actual exercise of significant control over the terms and conditions of an employee’s work, rather than attenuated control or contractually reserved control that goes unexercised.

Each year, the California Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) identifies proposed state legislation that the Chamber believes “will decimate economic and job growth in California.”  The Chamber refers to these bills as “Job Killers.” In March, the Chamber identified the first two Job Killers of 2019: AB 51 and SB 1. Both bills would negatively impact retailers in California. You can view the Chamber’s Job Killer site here.

Continue Reading

The U.S. Department of Labor on Thursday issued its new proposal to amend the salary threshold for employees to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions from overtime pay requirements to $35,308 per year ($679 per week).

The much-anticipated proposed rule would raise the minimum annual salary requirement for the white-collar exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act from $23,600, a level that has been in place since 2004.  The DOL estimates that the rule change will make just more than one million new employees eligible to earn overtime, assuming that employers do not increase employees’ salary levels to meet or exceed the new level.

We recently highlighted DOL opinion letter 2018-27, which rescinded the 80/20 rule and was a welcome change for employers in the restaurant industry.  However, less than two months after the DOL’s policy change, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri rejected the DOL’s new guidance, claiming it is “unpersuasive and unworthy” of deference.

As a refresher, the 80/20 rule requires businesses to pay tipped workers at least minimum wage (with no tip credit) for non-tip generating tasks when these tasks take up more than 20% of the tipped workers’ time.

As detailed in our previous article on this issue, in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (June 17, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court established limitations on personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants in “mass actions,” effectively supporting the view that plaintiffs cannot simply “forum shop” in large class and collective actions and instead must sue where the corporate defendant has significant contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction or limit the class definition to residents of the state where the lawsuit is filed.  Notably, the Supreme Court’s decision was limited to personal jurisdiction issues in state courts, which has led to a split on the question of whether, and to what extent, the Supreme Court’s analysis applies to class and collective actions pending in federal court.

In a rare win for plaintiffs seeking to avoid arbitration, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a trucking company’s attempt to compel arbitration in a driver’s proposed minimum wage class action.  The Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for interstate transportation workers applies not only to employees, but also to those classified as independent contractors.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently published an Opinion Letter (FLSA-2018-27) reissuing its January 16, 2009 guidance (Opinion Letter FLSA-2009-23) and reversing its Obama-era position on the 20% tip credit rule.  This opinion letter marks another major shift in DOL’s policy and presents a welcome change for employers in the restaurant industry.

As we wrote about last month, on May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1632 (2018), rejecting perhaps the largest remaining obstacles to the enforcement of class action waivers in arbitration agreements in the employment context.  The Court concluded that the class action waivers did not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Although the Court’s opinion also seemed dispositive of whether such agreements could be avoided under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), at least one claimant tried to continue to litigate the issue, which was disposed of last week in Gaffers v. Kelly Servs., Inc., No. 16-2210 (6th Cir. 2018).  And now the Sixth Circuit has addressed whether Epic Systems would apply to arbitration agreements with putative independent contractors who contended that they should have been treated as employees.

After the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Asalde v. First Class Parking Systems LLC 894 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2018), more small employers may be subject to the requirements of the FLSA.  By expanding the “handling clause,” the case chips away at the degree of interstate commerce necessary for the FLSA to apply.

In AHMC Healthcare, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. B285655 (June 25, 2018) (“AHMC Healthcare”), California’s Second District Court of Appeals upheld an employer’s use of a payroll system that automatically rounds employee time up or down to the nearest quarter hour.  Although the California Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue, AHMC Healthcare aligns with decisions from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, many federal district courts, and California’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, which also upheld time-rounding practices.

A single paragraph in an otherwise routine opinion could have reverberations in FLSA exemption cases for years to come.

Earlier this week, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held in Encino Motorcars LLC v. Navarro et al. that auto service advisors are exempt under the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement.  While the case resolved a circuit split for a discrete exemption, the Court’s decision has broad implications for all employers.

The practice of “tip-pooling,” which refers to the sharing of tips between “front-of-house” staff (servers, waiters, bartenders) and “back-of-house” staff (chefs and dishwashers), has been in the news recently as the Trump Department of Labor (“DOL”) seeks to roll back a 2011 Obama-era rule limiting the practice under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Say an employee slips $20 from the register and even admits to it when you show the camera footage.  Or, more innocently, say an employee is overpaid $20 entirely by accident.  If the employee refuses to give it back, should you deduct the $20 from the employee’s paycheck?

It depends.  Here are four questions to ask yourself. 

Under a new DOL pilot program, employers can self-report wage violations and potentially avoid costly litigation.

Last week, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) launched a six-month pilot program to resolve FLSA violations.  Under the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, employers may self-report potential overtime or minimum wage violations to the WHD, which will then resolve the matter by supervising payments to employees if the employees accept the settlement.  Importantly, the WHD will not impose penalties or liquidated damages on employers that participate in the program and proactively work with the WHD to resolve the compensation errors.  Further, if an employee accepts a supervised settlement through PAID, s/he waives his or her right to file an action to recover damages and fees for the violations and time period identified by the employer.  To participate in the PAID program, an employer must identify: (1) the wage violation(s); (2) the impacted employee(s); (3) the time period(s) in which the violation(s) occurred; and (4) the amount of back wages owed to the impacted employee(s).  However, employers may not participate if they are in litigation or under investigation by the WHD for the practices at issue, or to repeatedly resolve the same potential violations.

The California Supreme Court issued a decision Monday in a case that is sure to cause headaches for employers when compensating employees through flat sum bonuses.  In Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California (S232607) the Court held that for purposes of calculating the regular rate, a flat sum bonus is to be allocated only to the nonovertime hours worked. This holding departs from the calculation methods broadly considered compliant outside of California under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor.

The Sixth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s summary judgment decision finding that an employer, Plastipak Holdings, Inc., Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Plastipak Technologies, LLC, Plastipak, and William C. Young (collectively, “Plastipak”) properly had paid employees using the “fluctuating workweek” method and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for underpayment of wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

On February 1, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed an overtime class action suit brought on behalf of a group of former democratic campaign workers for their work during the 2016 presidential election.  See Katz v. DNC Services Corp., Civil Action No. 16-5800 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2018).  In dismissing the overtime suit, the Court relied on an often-overlooked defense to the Fair Labor Standard Act (“FLSA”) – namely, that the FLSA only covers employees engaged in interstate commerce as opposed to employees engaged in purely local activities.

On January 8, 2018, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari seeking to overturn the Fourth Circuit’s new joint employer test under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  As a result, employers will continue to be faced with differing joint employer standards in the various federal circuits.

On Friday, January 5, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) posted a brief statement and updated its Fact Sheet on Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify that going forward, it will use the “primary beneficiary” seven factor test for distinguishing bona fide interns from employees under the FLSA.  The DOL’s approach is consistent with the test adopted by appellate courts such as the Second and Ninth Circuits.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) seeking to repeal a 2011 rule that significantly impacted the compensation of hospitality workers.  Specifically, the NPRM proposes to allow hospitality employers to control the distribution of the tips they pool assuming their employees are paid the full minimum wage.  By way of background, the FLSA requires employers to pay employees a minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) plus overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek.  Employees who “customarily and regularly receive tips” must still receive the minimum wage, but employers may elect to take a “tip credit” by counting up to $5.12 per hour of those employees’ tips toward the minimum wage, meaning employers may pay a reduced wage of $2.13 to tipped employees.  Historically, employers that take the tip credit have been prohibited from sharing money from a tip-pooling system to employees who do not traditionally receive direct tips (cooks, dish washers, etc.).  In 2011, the DOL extended the tip-pooling prohibition to apply to employers even if they do not take the tip credit and pay their employees the full federal minimum wage.

On August 31, 2017, a federal district court judge in Texas struck down the Department of Labor’s Obama-era controversial 2016 rule that raised the minimum salary threshold required to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “white collar” exemption. Under the proposed regulations, the minimum salary threshold was raised to just over $47,000 per year, and increased the overtime eligibility threshold for highly compensated workers from $100,000 to about $134,000.

Continue Reading

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held in Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc. that an employer that pays its employees a set wage over the minimum wage can retain tips for itself and does not have to share them with employees. No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. June 30, 2017).

The New Food Guy, Inc., a Colorado company doing business as Relish Catering, employed Bridgette Marlow to provide catering services. Relish paid Marlow a base wage of $12 an hour and $18 an hour for overtime. Although this was well above the $7.25 federal minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Marlow sued Relish because it did not increase her wage with a share of the tips paid by customers. Relish moved for a judgment on the pleadings and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado held in its favor. After failing to get the Colorado court to reconsider the judgment, Marlow appealed.

The U.S. Department of Labor continues to work towards dismantling the Obama administration’s overtime rule, saying that it intends to revise the controversial rule to lower the salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions. The Obama administration’s rule sought to more than double the current salary requirement of $23,660 a year for white-collar exemptions. Though the rule was estimated to make 4 million additional workers eligible for overtime pay, it was also expected to cause employers significant financial and regulatory burdens.

One of the most controversial regulatory actions from the US Department of Labor during the Obama administration was the DOL’s regulation significantly increasing the salary level under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions.  The regulation sought to more than double the current salary requirement of $23,660 per year, and it included an automatic updating requirement that would have accelerated future salary level increases at a rate well above the rate of inflation.

Recently, we discussed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District Columbia that considered whether a former employee’s failure to initially list an employment discrimination claim on her bankruptcy schedules barred her from pursuing the claim against her former employer under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

The United States Supreme Court has granted consolidated review of three cases to determine whether arbitration agreements that waive employees’ rights to participate in a class action lawsuit against their employer are unlawful. The Court’s decision to address the uncertainty surrounding class action waivers of employment claims follows a circuit split last year in which the Fifth and Eighth circuits upheld such waivers and the Seventh and Ninth circuits found that such waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act. Given the increasingly widespread use of class action waivers by employers to stem costly class and collective actions, the high court’s ruling is likely to have a significant nationwide impact.

Much has been written about the National Labor Relations Board’s controversial Browning-Ferris decision that significantly expanded the scope of joint employer liability under the National Labor Relations Act. But virtually no attention has been given to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent panel decision in Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., No. 15-1915 (4th Cir. 2017), which creates an altogether new and incredibly broad joint employment standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act that makes the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris joint employment standard seem ...

On November 22, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas preliminarily enjoined the Department of Labor’s final overtime rule, which would have expanded overtime eligibility to executive, administrative, and professional employees making less than  $47,476 per year, who were previously exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s requirements under its white collar exemption.  The final rule was scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016.

On November 16, 2016, Judge Amos L. Mazzant, heard more than three hours of oral argument from a group of 21 States (“State Plaintiffs”) challenging the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule. Following the hearing, the motion for a preliminary injunction of the rule was taken under advisement and a ruling is forthcoming on Tuesday, November 22,2016. Judge Mazzant’s pointed criticism of the rule during argument suggests employers may have reason to be optimistic.

With its May 26 Lewis v. Epic-Systems Corp. decision, the Seventh Circuit became the first circuit to back the reasoning in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (2012), and held that a mandatory arbitration agreement prohibiting employees from bringing class or collective actions against their employer violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). This decision creates a circuit split regarding the enforceability of arbitration agreements with class action waivers in the employment context, and the issue is now ripe for potential Supreme Court review.

Today, the U.S. Department of Labor published its final rule increasing the salary requirement for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions to $47,476 per year ($913 per week). Though the new salary level is not as high as the $50,440 per year level predicted by the DOL in its July 2015 proposed rule, the final rule nonetheless more than doubles the current salary requirement of $23,660 per year ($455 per week). The reason the salary requirement is somewhat lower than initially predicted is that the final rule applies the proposed 40% threshold to the average full-time salary compensation paid in the lowest-wage Census region, as opposed to applying the 40% threshold to the national salary average.

On March 17, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, holding that sufficient evidence existed to find that the Culinary Institute of America’s (“CIA”) human resources director was an “employer” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and could therefore be held individually liable for violations of the FMLA. In reaching this decision, the court found that the economic-realities test used to analyze whether an individual is an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) should also be used to determine whether an individual is an “employer” under the FMLA. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the Southern District of New York’s summary judgment decision on the question of individual liability for further consideration under the economic-realities standard. The application of this test likely means an increased risk of individual liability for human resources directors, supervisors, and other members of management charged with violating an employee’s rights under the FMLA.

The United States Department of Labor (the “DOL”) has announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to implement Executive Order 13706, which requires federal government contractors to provide employees with up to 7 days of paid sick leave annually. As a result, the DOL estimates that employers will be compelled to provide additional paid leave to 828,000 employees, including 437,000 employees who do not currently receive any paid sick leave.

Coverage

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers who use a tip credit to satisfy their minimum wage obligations for tipped employees must follow certain rules related to those tips.  One of those rules relates to  the use of tip pools – i.e., pooling of tips received by multiple tipped employees and then dividing the total among the pool participants based on a specified formula.  Under Section 3(m) of the FLSA, employers who rely on the tip credit and who require their tipped employees to contribute their tips to a tip-pooling arrangement must ensure that the only employees who participate in the pool are those that “customarily and regularly” receive tips.  This typically means that managers, hostesses, cooks, dishwashers, and other non-tipped employees cannot participate in the tip pool if the employer wants to rely on the FLSA’s tip credit.

The United States Supreme Court has denied a restaurant manager’s petition seeking review of whether parties may stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), or whether judicial or Department of Labor (“DOL”) approval is a prerequisite to such a dismissal, as the Second Circuit held in his case, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.  Having declined the petition for writ of certiorari, FLSA lawsuits will remain more difficult to resolve for employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

On January 20, 2016, the administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), David Weil, issued an “Administrator’s Interpretation” (AI) regarding the agency’s interpretation of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). The new AI purports to clarify the WHD’s position that joint employment under these statutes “should be defined expansively.” When considered alongside the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB or the Board) controversial ...

For years, there has been nearly universal agreement among the courts that managers do not engage in “protected activity” for retaliation claim purposes under most employment laws when they raise concerns about compliance issues in the regular course of performing their job duties. The traditional reasoning held that a manager whose job includes evaluating and/or reporting compliance issues, and who does so in furtherance of his or her job duties, should not become cloaked in anti-retaliation protection for merely doing the job he or she is employed to do. Instead, to engage in protected activity, the manager must step outside his or her role as a manager and become adversarial to the employer. The so-called “manager rule” has been consistently used by courts to reject retaliation claims under various employment statutes by human resources professionals and supervisors who report employment-related compliance issues related to other employees.

On November 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit refused to enforce an arbitration clause in an employee handbook on the grounds that the employee never agreed to be contractually bound by the handbook, and that a court can only compel arbitration where it is satisfied that the parties have agreed to arbitrate. This case, Lorenzo v. Prime Communications, L.P., should serve as a warning to employers to review their employee handbooks to be sure that provisions, like an arbitration clause, will be enforceable.

In a move that could significantly increase the cost and expense of defending a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action, a federal district court Judge has dispensed with the traditional method for joining putative class members in an FLSA collective action. The Judge is going to permit employees to join if they submit a notice.  Such a move could lead to more protracted litigation and will certainly be appealed. In Turner, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-02612, Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and judicial notice to the class. The case involves plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims against Chipotle under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state laws of Arizona, California, Colorado and New Jersey. That the plaintiffs’ motion was granted is not, in and of itself, notable. But what is remarkable is the procedure applied for those who would seek to join the suit.

On Friday, August 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2013 rule extending FLSA overtime and minimum wage protections to employees of home health care agencies who provide “companionship services” or live-in domestic care. The rule modified an exemption that was part of a 1974 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) that required domestic service workers to receive overtime and minimum wage, but excluded from those requirements employees who provide companionship services or live in the home where they work. Under the 2013 rule, the exemption for companionship services and live-in care only applies to workers employed by individuals or families who are receiving the care, not to employees of third-party home care providers. The 2013 rule also narrowed the definition of companionship services. Specifically, a worker only falls under the companionship exemption if the worker is employed directly by members of a household where the worker provides “fellowship and protection” (i.e. socializing with and monitoring the safety of elderly or infirm people) or if the worker provides daily living assistance, such as dressing and grooming, in conjunction with fellowship and protection, but does not spend more than twenty percent of their time providing such assistance.

On July 15, 2015, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued guidance which it claims is designed to reduce the misclassification of employees as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This guidance boldly claims that “most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definitions.” Based on this guidance, the DOL will likely aggressively argue that workers are employees subject to the FLSA – not independent contractors.

In a closely watched case, Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. (decided July 2, 2015), the Second Circuit rejected the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) intern test under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and adopted a balancing test that focuses on whether the employee or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship (“primary beneficiary test”).  This is important because interns are not considered employees, and thus, are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA.

Yesterday, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a proposed rule that is expected to significantly increase the number of employees who are eligible for overtime.  The proposed rule increases the minimum salary threshold for exempt workers from the current level of $23,660 to $50,440.  The rule applies to the FLSA’s executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees exemptions, but not the outside sales exemption which does not have a salary basis requirement.

On April 1, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided Alvarado v. Corporate Cleaning Serv., Inc., 2015 WL 1456573 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2015), an important decision interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime requirements.  The plaintiffs in the case were twenty-four (24) window washers employed by a company servicing commercial skyscrapers in the Chicago area.  The plaintiffs argued they had not been paid certain overtime wages under the Act.  The company, CCS, admitted it had not paid overtime, but argued that an exemption applied in the case to the FLSA’s overtime requirements.

Federal agencies need not go through the formal and drawn-out “notice-and-comment” process when altering an interpretation of a regulation.  In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association stated that the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) does not mandate notice-and-comment rulemaking for interpretive rules.  In doing so, the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine established by the D.C. Circuit’s 1997 decision, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. D.C. Arena L.P., 117 F.3d 579 (D.C. Cir. 1997), which had held that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures prior to issuing a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from a definitive interpretation the agency had previously adopted.  In Perez, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine was consistent with the APA, ultimately finding that it was not. 

In Mark v. Gawker Media LLC (“Gawker”), S.D.N.Y. Case No. 13-cv-4347, the Court permitted Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a plan to distribute class notice through social media.  Plaintiff put forward a plan to use five websites to not only distribute notice, but also to potentially locate additional collective action members.  The Southern District of New York rejected this proposal, even after the parties had agreed to certain aspects of it, finding “[t]he proposals [were] substantially overbroad for the purposes of providing notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs, and [that] much of Plaintiff’s plan appear[ed] calculated to punish Defendants rather than provide notice of opt-in rights.”

As we previously reported, federal courts around the country have slowly begun to take a more flexible approach to evaluating the enforceability of private FLSA settlement agreements, calling into question the widely-held, decades-old view that settlements of FLSA claims are unenforceable unless they are approved by the DOL or a court.  Last month, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas joined this slowly growing movement, holding that in individual FLSA lawsuits, court approval of the FLSA settlement agreement is not necessary if all parties are represented by counsel.

On December 22, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated a new U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulation, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2015, which eliminated an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for employees who provide home companionship and live-in domestic services. Home Care Ass'n of Am. v. Weil, No. 14-cv-967 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2014). The DOL's new regulation was controversial not only because it reversed years of precedent under the FLSA, but because many questioned whether the DOL had exceeded its authority in promulgating this regulation.

On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk that the time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-433.  The case involved hourly temporary staffing-agency warehouse workers who retrieved products from warehouse shelves and packaged the products for delivery to Amazon.com customers.  Before leaving the warehouse each day, workers were required to undergo a security screening involving the removal of wallets, keys, and belts from their persons and passing through metal detectors.

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk
Oral argument was heard on October 8, 2014.  This case will resolve a circuit split on whether time spent by warehouse workers going through security is paid time.  The Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal to Portal Act, does not require an employer to compensate for activities that are preliminary or postliminary to their principle work.  29 U.S.C. §254(a)(2).  The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, but the Ninth Circuit ruled against Integrity Solutions, a contractor to Amazon.com, holding that going through security was an “integral and indispensable” part of the shift and not a non-compensable postliminary activity.  The Second and Eleventh Circuits previously held that time in security screening is not compensable time.  Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief on the side of Integrity Staffing.

On November 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit held  that sufficient specificity in pleading is required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in Greg Landers v. Quality Communications Inc.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a proposed overtime class action.  While this was an issue of first impression for the Ninth Circuit, the decision falls in line with similar rulings made by the First, Second and Third Circuits and disagrees with the Eleventh Circuit holding that conclusory allegations that merely recite the statutory language are adequate.

Unpaid interns have increasingly become a hot topic among lawmakers and courts.  Last week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation which prohibits New York State employers from discriminating against, or sexually harassing, unpaid interns.  New York State enacted this legislation only a few months after New York City passed a law which prohibits discrimination against unpaid interns.  New York City unanimously enacted its legislation in response to a district court ruling in October 2013, which found that an intern could not proceed with a sexual harassment claim because she was unpaid, and therefore, she was not entitled to protections under Title VII or the New York City Human Rights Law.  (Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)).  Although few jurisdictions currently offer unpaid interns protection from discrimination or sexual harassment (only New York, Oregon and Washington, D.C.), legislators in New Jersey and California have introduced bills which would grant unpaid interns these same protections.  The California bill has already passed the State Assembly and is being reviewed by the State Senate.