Inching Closer to a New Overtime Rule?

Adams, Julie 300dpi
Julie Adams

In 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) modified 29 C.F.R. § 541 – which regulates  the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) white-collar exemptions (administrative, executive, professional, computer, and outside sales) – often referred to as the “Overtime Rule.”  Among other changes, the new Overtime Rule increased the salary threshold for white-collar employees from $23,660 to $47,476.  Before the new Overtime Rule took effect, Judge Amos Mazzant, a federal district judge in Texas, temporarily blocked the rule by entering an injunction in Nevada v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 227 F. Supp. 3d 696 (E.D. Tex. 2017).  Rather than appeal Judge Mazzant’s decision and pursue implementation of the revised 2016 rule, the DOL elected, instead, to proceed with a new rulemaking.  Continue reading

Illinois Court Highlights Individual Liability Risk in FLSA Claims

Russell_Jackson_IL
Russell Jackson

Executive Summary: Under the FLSA, personal liability can attach to individual employees in supervisory, management, and executive positions.  To be held liable, the individual defendant must be considered an “employer,” defined as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee”.  29 C.F.R. § 570.113(a).  While the FLSA’s definition is relatively broad, recently, in Foday et al v. Air Check, Inc. et al, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140552 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2018), the Northern District of Illinois clarified when individual employees can properly be named as defendants, holding that a company’s President could be held liable because he possessed certain supervisory functions and knowledge of the company’s relevant pay and scheduling practices.  Continue reading

$282.55 Short Of An FLSA Claim

Shooman, Jeff - 300dpi
Jeff Shooman

Executive Summary: With Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) lawsuits becoming ubiquitous in recent years, it can be easy to forget that the act does not apply to all businesses or all employees.  On July 17, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provided a useful reminder that the first step in analyzing any FLSA claim is not determining if there are minimum wage or overtime violations, but rather if the FLSA applies at all.   Specifically, in Collar v. Abalux, Inc., No. 18-10676, __ F.3d __, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19592 (11th Cir. July 17, 2018) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to an employer because the FLSA was not triggered given that the company had less than $500,000 in annual gross receipts, which is the minimum for enterprise coverage under the statute. Continue reading

Are You Paying Your Employees to Travel from One Customer to the Next?

Close, Grant - 300dpi
Grant Close

In most circumstances, the FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees for the time they spend traveling from one work site to another during their work day.  This is not breaking news, but, as it is a topic that impacts a large number of employers, it is important for employers to understand the rules surrounding compensable travel time.  The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion letter earlier this year on the topic that helps clarify the travel time principles under the FLSA and the multiple DOL regulations that come into play on this issue.  The DOL’s opinion letter FLSA2018-18, available at https://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/FLSA/2018/2018_04_12_01_FLSA.pdf,  provides a straightforward guide to some simple rules to follow in this context. Continue reading

California Court Holds Rounding Employee Time Punches to Nearest Quarter Hour OK—Under the Circumstances

Calculator Icon-02Executive Summary: Under California law, employers are required to pay employees for “all hours worked” when subject to the employer’s “control.” This raises the question: if an employer uses a timekeeping system that automatically rounds employee time punches up or down to the nearest quarter hour, is that lawful? The California Court of Appeals recently said “yes”—depending upon whether the rounding policy and practice are both neutral.

Continue reading

Eleventh Circuit: “Necessary” Means “Used” – Not “Necessary” – When Determining “Handling Clause” Coverage Under FLSA

Prendergast, Mike - 300dpi
Mike Prendergast

In Asalde v. First Class Parking Sys., LLC, No. 16-16814, ___ F.3d ___, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17935 (11th Cir. June 29, 2018), a collective action for unpaid minimum wage and overtime, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found, in a split decision, that foreign-made uniforms worn by parking lot valets create a genuine issue of fact concerning an employer’s “enterprise” coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “handling clause.”  Continue reading

Eleventh Circuit Allows Employer to Share Employee’s Tips as Long as It Pays Employee Minimum Wage

Federal regulations currently treat tips as the employee’s property, regardless of whether the employer pays that employee the minimum wage or whether it uses a tip credit to satisfy the minimum wage requirement. Recently, the federal Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a rule that, if passed this year, would allow employers to require the sharing of tips with employees who do not customarily receive direct tips (such as restaurant cooks, dish washers, and similar workers), so long as the employer pays employees the full federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Employers who use the tip credit option to satisfy the minimum wage obligation would not be allowed to require tip sharing with workers who do not customarily receive tips.

Continue reading