Wage & Hour Counsel : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Employment Law, Labor Relations

On August 31, 2010, just in time for Labor Day, New York Governor David Paterson signed into law the “Domestic Workers Bill of Rights” (“Bill of Rights”), which grants certain employment protections to household domestic workers such as nannies, caregivers and housekeepers. The Bill of Rights, which takes effect on November 29, 2010, is the first of its kind in the nation and amends New York Labor Law, in addition to other statutes, to entitle domestic workers to receive overtime pay, one day of rest per week or overtime pay when they work on their day of rest, and three days of paid time off after one year of employment. To learn more about the law and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, "New York Enacts Bill of Rights for Domestic Workers," by Stephen A. Fuchs.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) introduced legislation that would extend the federal minimum wage and overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to most home care workers, improve federal and state data collection and oversight with respect to the direct care workforce, and create a grant program to help states recruit and train direct care workers. Specifically, the Direct Care Workforce Empowerment Act (H.R. 5902) would limit the “companionship services” FLSA exemption to those who work 20 or fewer hours per week. To learn more about the bill, please continue reading at Littler's D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Photo credit: AlexRaths

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following a Connecticut district court’s denial of summary judgment to the employer in Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a collective action brought by pharmaceutical sales representatives who claimed the were improperly classified as exempt employees, the pharmaceutical company has been hit with another putative collective action by sales representatives seeking overtime wages. But in this new case, Lopez-Lima v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, filed on July 21, 2010 in the federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiffs allege that Boehringer hired them as “non-exempt commission-paid pharmaceuticals sales representative[s].” To learn more about the case, please continue reading at Littler's Healthcare Employment Counsel blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 19, 2010, in Jackson v. Alpharma Inc., the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Alpharma, Inc.’s pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify as exempt administrative employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The court’s unpublished opinion relies in part on the Third Circuit’s holding in Smith v. Johnson & Johnson, 593 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2010).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a Texas corporation’s argument that drivers who performed services for the company were independent contractors—and therefore not subject to the requirements of the California Labor Code—because their contracts with the company contained a Texas choice of law provision. In Narayan v. EGL, Inc., the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to grant the company’s motion for summary judgment and instead remanded the case for trial. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit demonstrated the heavy burden imposed on companies seeking to establish an independent contractor relationship, even when the company has a written contract designating the workers as independent contractors.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 6, 2010 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation (“In re Novartis”)¹ that Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s pharmaceutical sales representatives (“Reps”) did not meet the requirements of the administrative or outside sales exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and therefore were incorrectly classified as exempt employees. In so doing, the Second Circuit reversed a decision by the district court for the Southern District of New York and reached a conclusion contrary to that reached by the Third Circuit in the recent Smith v. Johnson & Johnson case.

In support of its decision, the Second Circuit found the following facts: In visits typically lasting no more than five minutes, the Reps provide physicians with information about the benefits of Novartis pharmaceuticals and encourage them to prescribe the products to their patients. Reps may give physicians reprints of clinical studies about the pharmaceuticals, identify the Novartis products for which insurers will pay, organize meals and programs to promote particular products, give physicians samples of drugs, and in many instances get physicians to say they will prescribe Novartis products in the future. Although physicians cannot purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer, the Reps seek verbal commitments from physicians to prescribe Novartis’s drugs to their patients.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A court recently held that the Massachusetts overtime law, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151 § 1A, may apply to work performed outside of Massachusetts by employees of a Massachusetts company. This is a significant ruling, given that the overtime law provides for mandatory awards of treble damages and attorneys’ fees to successful plaintiffs.

The plaintiff in Gonyou v. Tri-Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc. (pdf) lived in Massachusetts. He worked as a “technician supervisor” at the company’s facility in Danbury, Connecticut. After the company terminated his employment, the plaintiff sued, alleging that the company failed to pay him overtime while he worked in Connecticut.

After removing the case to federal court in Massachusetts, Tri-Wire moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim under the Massachusetts overtime law. Specifically, Tri-Wire argued that there is a presumption against extra-territorial application of statutes and the place of employment is the crucial factor in determining which state’s law is applicable. The plaintiff responded by arguing that nothing in the language of the statute compels such a result and that his proposed approach “does no more than ask this employer to stay abreast of the employment laws of its own home state.”

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) has amended its administrative rules pertaining to minimum wage, overtime, and working conditions effective June 1, 2010. Generally speaking, the amendments (pdf) conform Oregon’s minimum wage and overtime exemptions to federal law and clarify the rules for meals and rest periods.

First, the amended rules provide that individuals employed in domestic service positions who provide companionship services for individuals who are elderly or infirm (and therefore unable to care for themselves), are not required to be employed by the individual for whom they provide such services in order to be exempt from minimum wage.

Second, under the amendments, Oregon law is consistent with federal law by providing that certain computer system analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similar skilled workers must be paid the equivalent of $27.63 per hour for each hour worked (although not necessarily on an hourly basis).

Third, the amendments state that, except as otherwise provided in the administrative rules, employees who are not relieved of all duties for 30 continuous minutes during their meal period must be paid for the entire 30-minute meal period.

These rules became effective as of June 1, 2010.

This entry was written by Janice Kim.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In April 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new Fact Sheet discussing the circumstances under which “interns must be paid the minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for services that they provide to ‘for-profit’ private sector employers.” At the same time, California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) stated in an opinion letter that it will apply the same rules that the DOL has applied in the past and will continue to apply as described in the Fact Sheet.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Maryland General Assembly recently amended the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWP&CL) in two significant ways. The MWP&CL governs the timing of payment and payment of wages (such as salary, bonus or commissions) upon the termination of employment.

First, the General Assembly added “overtime wages” to the definition of “wage.” Accordingly, if a court now finds that an employer withheld overtime wages, other than as a result of a bona fide dispute, the employee may be entitled to treble damages. This represents a change from existing court precedent, which provided that an employee could sue for overtime wages only under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, but not under the MWP&CL. Notably, the new law fails to provide any guidance to courts about how the conflicting penalty sections of these statutes should be reconciled.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 25, 2010, the central district court of California denied class certification in two consolidated cases, Spainhower v U.S. Bank and Williams v. U.S. Bank, a decision that could impact plaintiffs’ attempts to certify future misclassification cases in federal court. In their motion, the plaintiffs sought certification of all in-store branch managers whom they claim were misclassified as exempt under the executive, administrative, and outside sales exemptions. Although the plaintiffs’ motion sought class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3), their supporting points and authorities only argued for certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) because individualized factual inquiries would inevitably consume the majority of a trial and overwhelm the adjudication of common issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a case of great significance to public employers, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision holding that the time spent putting on and taking off required uniforms and gear does not constitute compensable work for police officers. In Bamonte v. City of Mesa (9th Cir. 08-16206) the claimants were current and former police officers of the City of Mesa who contended that they ought to be paid for the time it took them to put on and take off their uniforms and gear at the beginning and end of their shift, a process referred to as donning and doffing. The City argued that although it required every patrol officer to wear a proper uniform, the City imposed no restriction on where each officer put on or took off that uniform and gear. Therefore, because officers were not required to don and doff exclusively at work, the City had no legal obligation to pay for the time devoted to donning and doffing. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment to the City. On March 25, a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision in a 2-1 opinion. Officers in many other law enforcement agencies throughout the West filed similar lawsuits, but the Bamonte case is the first to be the subject of a substantive decision by the Ninth Circuit.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a development that may have significant implications for mortgage lenders and other financial services employers, the Department of Labor has issued a new Administrator's Interpretation finding that mortgage loan officers do not qualify as exempt administrative employees under the FLSA, reversing its prior position and withdrawing previous opinion letters concluding to the contrary. To continue reading about this development, see Littler's ASAP Department of Labor Reverses Course: Mortgage Loan Officers Do Not Meet the Administrative Exemption's Requirements by Robert W. Pritchard, R. Brian Dixon and Andrew J. Voss.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Schmidt v. Eagle Waste & Recycling Inc., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to a Wisconsin waste removal company and agreed that the defendant properly classified its former “account representative” as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiff had been hired as a “sales representative,” but had adopted the title “account representative,” with the defendant’s permission. Several months after the plaintiff’s employment ended, she sued the defendant under the FLSA for failing to pay her for overtime. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff’s sales and marketing duties rendered her exempt under both the outside sales and “combination” exemptions to the FLSA. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In its first Administrator Interpretation Letter, the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced today that mortgage loan officers do not qualify as bona fide administrative employees under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In reversing its prior stance on the issue, the DOL withdrew two opinion letters issued on September 8, 2006 and February 16, 2001, in which it previously had found that loan officers were exempt administrative employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” to the claim of a Catholic seminarian, affirming the district court’s Rule 12(c) dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for overtime pay under the Washington Minimum Wage Act (WMWA). In Rosas v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, the Ninth Circuit adopted a new test for determining whether a person is a “minister” for purposes of the ministerial exception.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars Ltd. (7th Cir., No. 09-1181, Dec. 21, 2009), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals analyzed the extent to which drivers who delivered wine exclusively within the State of Illinois were engaged in interstate commerce and, therefore, not entitled to overtime under the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Specifically, this exemption from overtime applies to employees of a motor carrier if “property ... [is] transported by [the] motor carrier between a place in a State and a place in another State,” provided the employees “engage in activities of a character directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on the public highways of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act.” As the court noted, “[t]he shipment itself must be in some sense interstate commerce (transportation between a place in a state and a place in another state).”

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Barbosa v. IMPCO Technologies, Inc., the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held that terminating an employee for exercising his statutory right to overtime wages out of a reasonable, good faith belief of entitlement to it, (notwithstanding the subsequent discovery that he was wrong), was contrary to California public policy.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham,¹ 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108992 (D. Ariz. Nov. 20, 2009), a federal district court in Arizona held that pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) were “outside salespeople” and therefore exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 14, 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) filed an amicus brief in a case pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, In Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, arguing for a stricter interpretation of “outside salesperson” and “administrative employee” exemptions under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as applied to pharmaceutical sales representatives. In its brief, the DOL maintains that pharmaceutical sales representatives neither “make sales” nor exercise sufficient discretion to qualify for the exemptions from overtime compensation, urging the Court of Appeals to reverse the district court’s defense judgment below. See In Re Novartis Wage and Hour Litig., 593 F. Supp. 2d 637, 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Intrastate haulers and slingers of trash and recyclables are exempt under the federal Motor Carrier Act according to a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Craft, et al. v. Ray’s LLC and Donald Matthews, 1:08-cv-627-RLY-JMS (S.D. Ind.). The FLSA mandates that employers pay employees one and a half times their regular rate for each hour worked in excess of forty during a work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Several exceptions to this rule exist, including one for employees “over whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1).The Motor Carrier Act exemption specifically applies to drivers, drivers’ helpers, loaders, and mechanics who participate in interstate commerce within the scope of their employment. 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(b)(2).

In Craft, the plaintiffs transported full containers from customer locations to Ray’s Recycling or a transfer location owned by Ray’s, within Indiana state lines. Trash and recyclables are sorted, with trash being taken by a Ray’s driver to an in-state landfill or incinerator. Recyclable material is shredded, compacted or baled in preparation for delivery to end recipients. Ray’s Recycling does not process recyclable scrap metal. Instead, a Ray’s driver transports scrap metal from Ray’s Recycling or a transfer station to Farnsworth Metals, Inc., an Indiana company owned by the majority shareholder of Ray’s. Ray’s Recycling, the transfer stations, and Farnsworth typically received advance purchase orders and shipping instructions from end recipients. Over 50% of the end recipients are out-of-state.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It’s not often that employers get the chance to “peek behind the curtain” into the U.S. Department of Labor’s internal techniques and strategies for conducting wage and hour investigations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Department usually keeps its investigation methods confidential, and takes the position that such information is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and the investigation privilege.

Recently, employers got a rare chance to look inside the Department’s policies and procedures in an FLSA overtime case brought by the Department against the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC). In Solis v. State of Washington, Case No. 08-5362RJB (W.D. Wash.), the Department brought suit against the DOC for failing to keep proper records and failing to pay overtime wages to 872 state corrections officers. In response to the Department’s claims, the DOC asked the Department to produce its investigation files and records. Surprisingly, as part of its response to the DOC’s discovery requests, the Department produced a copy of its internal “Introduction to Full Investigation and Litigation (FIL) Training.” The Department uses the FIL Training guide to teach wage and hour investigators how to conduct effective investigations. As explained in the guide:

Our goal is to improve our ability to complete quality, full investigations that will convince employers that they have no choice but to change their violative behavior, or failing that, to provide a winning litigation case to the SOL [Solicitor of Labor].

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Obama administration recently increased commuter tax benefits making them more appealing to employers. State legislatures are also considering laws requiring employers to provide transit subsidies to employees. If an employer decides to provide commuter benefits to its employees, or such benefits are required by state law, the employer must also consider its wage and hour obligations. Most employers are, unfortunately, not aware that commuter subsidies must be included when calculating an employee’s regular rate for overtime purposes.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) explicitly includes commuting expenses in the regular rate. "An employee normally incurs expenses in traveling to and from work, buying lunch, paying rent, and the like. If the employer reimburses him for these normal everyday expenses, the payment is not excluded from the regular rate". 29 C.F.R. § 778.21.

There is only one reported decision, under either federal or state law, that addresses this issue. The facts of the case are simple. The Montana Department of Transportation agreed in a collective bargaining agreement to pay its employees’ commuting expenses, but did not include these expenses in their regular rate calculations when computing overtime. See Montana Public Employee’s Association v.Dep’t of Transportation, 954 P.2d 21 (Mont. 1998). The union alleged that the state had violated the FLSA and the Supreme Court of Montana agreed, finding that the commuting expenses should have been included in the regular rate.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On July 17, 2009, a federal magistrate judge sitting in the Eastern District of Michigan issued two significant rulings on pending motions for summary judgment in Henry v. Quicken Loans, Inc. The plaintiffs in Henry were employed as mortgage loan consultants (or “mortgage bankers”) for Quicken Loans, a large on-line mortgage lender. Quicken Loans classified its loan consultants as exempt from the overtime obligation imposed by the FLSA, in reliance upon the administrative exemption. The plaintiffs claimed, relying upon Quicken Loans’ hiring, training, and process documentation, as well as internal email, that they were primarily responsible for “selling” mortgage loans. If their primary duty was “sales,” the plaintiffs argued, they could not be considered exempt administrative employees.

In his first report and recommendation on cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative exemption defense, the magistrate judge found an issue of fact regarding the loan consultants’ primary duty. The plaintiffs relied heavily upon internal corporate documents which emphasized the loan consultants’ role in the sale of mortgage loans. Quicken Loans, however, pointed to the U.S. Department of Labor’s September 2006 opinion letter, which found that mortgage loan officers qualified for the administrative exemption if their duties included such activities as working with customers to identify and secure a loan that is appropriate for the customers’ financial circumstances, collecting and analyzing customer financial information, and advising the customer regarding the risks and benefits of loan alternatives. According to the magistrate judge, a jury would have to decide whether the plaintiffs fall within the scope of the opinion letter, or whether they were primarily responsible for sales.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Texas will soon join a growing list of more than a dozen states that have imposed mandatory overtime restrictions on hospitals, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia. Effective September 1, 2009, Texas hospitals can not, with limited exceptions, require registered or licensed vocational nurses to work mandatory overtime, nor can hospitals use on-call time as a substitute for mandatory overtime. Nurses are expressly authorized to refuse to work mandatory overtime and any such refusal does not constitute patient abandonment or neglect. Nothing in the law prohibits nurses from voluntarily working overtime.

Mandatory overtime means a requirement that a nurse work hours or days that are in addition to the hours or days scheduled, regardless of the length of a scheduled shift or the number of scheduled shifts each week. Pre and post-shift documentation and communication activities regarding a patient’s status, as well as prescheduled on-call time, are not included in making an overtime determination.

The new law contains four exceptions under which hospitals may require nurses to work mandatory overtime, including natural disasters in the hospital’s county or a contiguous county; governmental declarations of emergency in the hospital’s county or a contiguous county; emergencies or other infrequent, unforeseen events that hospital management could not have prudently anticipated that increase staffing needs; and ongoing medical or surgical procedures that necessitate the nurse’s continued attendance for patient care reasons. In the case of emergencies or unforeseen events, hospitals must first, to the extent possible, make a good faith effort to satisfy staffing needs through voluntary overtime, including calling per diems and agency nurses, assigning floats, or requesting an additional day of work from off-duty personnel.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 6, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, issued an opinion in Oracle v. Sullivan, 547 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), which came to three important conclusions regarding the reach of California law, including the following:

First, California's overtime laws may apply to nonresident employees (in the case itself, individuals from Arizona and Colorado were involved) for those periods of time that the employees temporarily work in California;

Second, the court found that a company that has a sufficient presence in the state, such as Oracle, can be required to comply with California law without violating that employer's due process rights; and

Third, the court found that California's unfair competition law does not apply to acts based on alleged federal wage law violations that occur outside of the state.  

This opinion was reported in our earlier blog posting, Federal Court Finds California Law Applies to Out Of State Workers.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pursuant to an annual adjustment required by the Nevada Constitution, Governor Jim Gibbons has announced the 2009 minimum wage and overtime rates.

Nevada has a two-tiered minimum wage rate dependent on whether an employer offers qualifying health benefits. As of July 1, 2009, the minimum hourly wage for employees who receive qualified health benefits from their employer will be $6.55. For all other employees, the minimum wage will be $7.55 per hour.

In Nevada, employers must pay one and one-half times an employee's regular rate of pay when an employee: (1) is paid less than one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage rate and (2) works more than 40 hours in any workweek or more than eight hours in any workday, unless otherwise exempted by Nevada Revised Statutes 608.018. Therefore, effective July 1, 2009, the daily overtime may apply if the employee to whom qualifying health benefits have been offered by the employer is paid less than $9.825 per hour. For an employee who is not offered health benefits, daily overtime may apply if the employee is paid less than $11.325 per hour.

This blog entry was authored by Roger Grandgenett.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the last days of the Bush administration, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter, recognizing that insurance agents might qualify for the FLSA’s outside sales exemption and/or the administrative exemption. In its letter, which came in response to a request from a trade association representing life insurance companies, the DOL cautioned that such a determination would depend on the specific facts of the particular case. FLSA2009-28.

With respect to the outside sales exemption, the DOL noted that insurance agents who are responsible for making sales and obtaining orders for life insurance and other financial products could qualify for the exemption. In general, to qualify for the outside sales exemption, the agent must “normally and recurrently” – meaning every workweek – meet with clients face-to-face and engage in sales or solicitations away from their employer’s place of business. The performance of some activities at the employer’s workplace, such as sending e-mails, making telephone calls and preparing for meetings, will not jeopardize the exemption, provided this work is merely incidental to and in conjunction with the qualifying outside sales activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Wage & Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor recently issued an opinion letter that could produce substantial savings for employers who have misclassified employees as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and who need to retroactively compensate those employees for unpaid overtime.

An employer may pay its employees a fixed salary. But, when a non-exempt employee works more than forty hours in any workweek, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires his or her employer to pay overtime at one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. 29 U.S.C. section 207(a)(1).

If an employer and a non-exempt salaried employee have a “clear mutual understanding” that the employee’s salary is compensation for all hours worked each week (whether many hours or few), then the FLSA permits the employer to use the “fluctuating workweek” method to calculate overtime. Applying this method, the employee’s salary is deemed to constitute straight-time pay for each hour of work (including overtime hours), and the employer must pay the employee only the additional “half time” premium for each overtime hour. 29 C.F.R. § 778.114.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California Court of Appeal recently confirmed the right of an employer to secure a release from claims for unpaid overtime where there exists a bona fide dispute over whether overtime wages were actually due. In Chindarah v. Pick Up Stix, Inc., two former employees of Pick Up Stix brought a proposed class action lawsuit against their former employer asserting claims for unpaid overtime, alleging they were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay. The employer was able to obtain settlements with over two hundred putative class members in exchange for their execution of a general release, wherein the employee acknowledged that he or she spent more than 50% of their time performing managerial duties and released Pick Up Stix from all claims for unpaid overtime and any other Labor Code violations during the relevant time period. Thereafter, the plaintiffs challenged the validity of these releases and argued that the settlement agreements violated Labor Code section 206.5, which provides: "An employer shall not require the execution of a release of a claim or right on account of wages due, or to become due, or made as an advance on wages to be earned, unless payment of those wages has been made. A release required or executed in violation of the provisions of this section shall be null and void as between the employer and the employee."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UPDATE: On February 17, 2009, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its decision in Sullivan v. Oracle and remanded the case back to the California Supreme Court for reconsideration.  The Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to consider the following issues:

First, does the California Labor Code apply to overtime work performed in California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case, such that overtime pay is required for work in excess of eight hours per day or in excess of forty hours per week?

Second, does California Business and Professions Code section 17200 apply to the overtime work described in question one?

Third, does section 17200 apply to overtime work performed outside California for a California-based employer by out-of-state plaintiffs in the circumstances of this case if the employer failed to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA?

This blog update was authored by Jim Hart.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, February 10, 2009, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) reintroduced the Family-Friendly Workplace Act (H.R. 933), a bill that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to permit private-sector employees to chose compensatory leave in lieu of cash wages for overtime hours worked. This “comp time” option has long been available to public sector employees, and has proven to be very popular. Continue reading on Littler's Washington DC Employment Law Update blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules that the “outside sales” exemption to the FLSA overtime requirements was properly applied to an executive for a title insurance company whose primary duty was conducting “promotional work” with the company’s clients, even though the employee did not finalize sales herself. According to the court, the executive, who was credited with sales through commission-based compensation, was conducting “sales in some sense.”

For more information about this development, see Littler's ASAP "Eleventh Circuit Holds Title Insurance Executive Who Conducts 'Promotional Work' Exempt Under the FLSA 'Outside Sales' Exemption" by Angelo Spinola and Matthew Laflin.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On January 21, 2009, the California Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing in the Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation case which addressed how to calculate overtime on a bonus. The court modified its opinion to clarify that the only controlling California authority on the issue is the directive that overtime hours be compensated at a rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. The December 23, 2008 opinion, with the January 21, 2009 revisions, was certified for publication.  Marin v. Costco was discussed in further detail in our previous post.

This blog entry was authored by Sandra Dermody.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) recently released to the public three December 2008 opinion letters that addressed inquiries regarding FLSA exemption issues.

The first letter (FLSA2008-11) concluded that Assistant Athletic Instructors at an institution of higher education are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Act as bona fide professionals, since their primary responsibility (occupying more than 50% of their time) is teaching student-athletes.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Many employers do not know that paying a non-discretionary bonus to non-exempt employees will require the payment of additional overtime. The California Court of Appeal’s decision in Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corporation is a good reminder of the need to pay overtime on such bonuses and of the fact that the method for calculating overtime on a bonus depends upon whether it qualifies as a “production bonus” or a “flat rate bonus.”

As a general matter, the payment of a non-discretionary bonus (one that is not discretionary in either the fact that it will be paid or in the formula for calculating it) to non-exempt employees triggers an additional overtime obligation because it retroactively increases the regular rate of pay for the employee receiving the bonus for the time period covered by the bonus. A non-exempt employee is entitled to be paid overtime at 1.5 times (or double, in some cases) the regular rate of pay for each overtime hour worked. With some specific exceptions not relevant here, the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes includes all compensation earned during the workweek. Thus, an employee who is paid a quarterly bonus has received additional compensation that was not included in the regular rate of pay when he or she was paid overtime for hours worked during the quarter at issue. An employer is required to resolve this issue by calculating a “regular rate” of pay on the bonus itself and then paying some portion of that regular bonus rate for each overtime hour worked during the period in which the bonus was earned. The precise method for calculating the overtime due on a bonus depends upon whether the amount of an employee’s bonus increases with each hour worked (in which case it is a “production bonus”) or whether the amount of the bonus is fixed independent of the hours worked (in which case it is a “flat rate bonus”).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While large insurance companies reportedly have paid over $100 million each to settle overtime claims brought by claims adjusters, insurance brokerage giant Aon rolled the dice and won a significant trial victory last week. Aon prevailed in an eleven-day trial against a certified class of 1,024 current and former claims adjusters employed by Aon’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Cambridge Integrated Services, Inc. As in most of these cases brought by claims adjusters, Aon’s adjusters sought overtime pay, and Aon successfully relied upon the administrative exemption to justify its failure to pay overtime in a bench trial before retired judge Ronald Sabraw. Since the California Court of Appeal previously rejected the applicability of the administrative exemption to insurance claims adjusters in Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 805, Aon’s adjusters here might have expected a cake walk. But little went their way this time.

Aon had four significant hurdles to overcome to avoid liability. To prove the adjusters were correctly classified exempt, Aon had to prove that: (1) the claims adjusters’ duties involved the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operations of Aon or its customers; (2) the claims adjusters customarily and regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment; (3) the claims adjusters performed under only general supervision work requiring special training, experience or knowledge; and (4) the adjusters spend at least 50 percent of their time performing these exempt duties. Aon cleared every one of these hurdles.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal district court judge granted partial summary adjudication to SkyWest Airlines, Inc., holding that a former employee’s claims under California wage and hour laws are pre-empted by federal law. Specifically, the court found that the former employee is not entitled to California’s daily overtime and meal and paid rest periods because they conflict with federal law – Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151-88.

Tiffany Blackwell, a former customer service representative for SkyWest, sought relief for multiple alleged violations of state law including claims that SkyWest failed to compensate her for daily overtime hours and provide her with meal and paid rest periods. SkyWest countered that Ms. Blackwell was a member of SkyWest Airlines’ Frontline Association (SAFA) and was subject to SkyWest-SAFA’s negotiated collective employee contract, which governed the terms of her employment.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

California Labor Code section 515.5 exempts certain employees in the computer software field from the state overtime requirements provided certain criteria are met. Historically, this exemption was only available for employees whose compensation exceeded a minimum hourly rate, which was set annual by the Division of Labor Statistics and Research (DLSR). Effective September 10, 2008, Assembly Bill 10 took effect, which expanded the exemption to include employees who are paid on a salary basis, as long as the salary exceeds certain monthly and annual amounts.

The DLSR has announced the applicable minimum rates for employees to qualify for California’s computer professional exemption. Effective January 1, 2009, the new hourly rate for computer software employees is $37.94 and the minimum annual salary exemption is $79,050.00, which must be paid in amounts no less than $6,587.50 per month. To qualify for the exemption, an employee’s compensation must equal or exceed these amounts and the employee must satisfy each of the elements set forth in section 515.5 of the Labor Code. The employee must be:

• Primarily engaged in duties that consist of at least one of the following: (1) application of system analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; (2) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; and (3) the documentation, testing creation, or modification of computer programs related to the design of software or hardware for computer systems; and
• Highly skilled and proficient in the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized information to computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering.

This blog entry was authored by Stacey James.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that California’s Labor Code applies to work performed in California by non-residents of California. Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation (08 Cal. Op. Serv. 13,881) (Nov. 6, 2008).

The three Oracle plaintiffs were Colorado and Arizona residents who traveled to California to work for periods ranging from several weeks to several months.  The plaintiffs brought a wage and hour class action against their employer, a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, seeking unpaid overtime on behalf of all out-of-state employees who worked complete days in California. The plaintiffs also brought a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (aka/ Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.), both for violations that occurred in California and throughout the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a decision that could lead to significant litigation cost savings for employers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently endorsed the so-called “fluctuating workweek” method of calculating back pay awards for misclassified, salaried employees in lawsuits arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The FLSA provides that non-exempt employees are generally entitled to overtime pay at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). When a non-exempt employee is paid a fixed salary and there is a “clear mutual understanding” that the salary is compensation for all hours worked each workweek (whether many or few), then: (a) the regular rate of the employee may be determined each workweek by dividing the salary by the number of hours worked in that week; and (b) payment for overtime hours at one-half that rate will satisfy the overtime pay requirement (because such hours have already been compensated at “straight time” via the salary itself). 29 C.F.R. § 778.114.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link