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

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

On August 21, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously ruled that a worker who has been misclassified as an independent contractor may seek damages from his former employer even if the employer establishes that the worker would have been paid less had he been classified as an employee.

The plaintiff in Somers v. Converged Access , 454 Mass. 582 (2009) worked for a software company as a quality assurance engineer. He was classified as an independent contractor and, as a result, did not receive overtime, vacation pay, or benefits. The company paid him at a rate of $65 per hour. The plaintiff initially agreed to work for a sixty-day term. He later agreed to a ninety-day extension of that term.

The plaintiff subsequently applied for a permanent quality assurance engineer position. After the company did not select him for the position, the plaintiff brought suit claiming, among other things, that he had been misclassified as an independent contractor.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 11, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Electronic Data Systems Corporation v. Attorney General, that the employer’s written vacation pay policy violated the Massachusetts Wage Act. The vacation pay policy at issue provided that any employee leaving the company, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, would not be paid for unused vacation time. According to the court, the policy impermissibly deprived employees of earned wages due upon termination under the terms of the Wage Act.

The Wage Act defines “wages” to include “vacation payments due an employee under an oral or written agreement.” Because the written agreement at issue in the case did not allow for payments of unused vacation, the employer argued that such vacation pay was not “due” under the terms of the agreement and, therefore, not “wages.”

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several new wage and hour bills made it through various state legislatures during the first quarter of the year. Below is a wrap up of new developments (including regulatory updates) since the beginning of the year.

Arkansas House Bill 1552 Effective 7/17/2009.  Requires employers to provide unpaid break time and reasonable locations for expressing breast milk.

California Assembly Bill x2 5 Effective 1/1/2010.  Eases the requirements for an alternative work week. For additional information see our previous Blog entry, Requirements for Use of Alternative Workweek in California Eased Slightly.

Iowa Senate File 618 Effective July 1, 2009. Updates civil and criminal penalties of up to $10,000 for the illegal use of child labor and from $100 to $500 per violation for workplace labor violations.  For additional information see our previous Blog entry New Mexico and Iowa Toughen Penalties for Wage and Hour Violations.

Massachusetts Senate Bill 2438 Effective 4/9/2009.  A mother may breastfeed her child in any public place or establishment or place which is open to and accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public and where the mother and her child may otherwise lawfully be present. The statute doesn't specifically mention employment, however it can be construed to include places of employment.

Montana House Bill 101 Effective 3/20/2009.  Revises the time period that an employer may withhold money from an employee's final paycheck in cases of theft or property or theft of funds.

Missouri Regulation 8 MO-ADC 4.010 et seq Effective 3/30/2009.  The Missouri Department of Labor's minimum wage regulations expressly adopts interpretations of the FLSA, and federal regulations.  For additional information see our previous Blog entry, New Missouri Wage and Hour Rules Reintroduce Federal Interpretations.

Nevada Minimum Wage and Overtime Rates Announced Effective 7/1/2009. For more details see our previous blog entry here.

New Mexico House Bill 849 Effective Jun 19, 2009.  Allows workers to collect treble damages against employers that violate the state's $7.50-an-hour minimum wage law.  For additional information see our previous Blog entry New Mexico and Iowa Toughen Penalties for Wage and Hour Violations.

North Dakota Senate Bill 2344 Effective September 5, 2009.  Provides that if the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner, a woman may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be.  Although this portion of the new law it does not expressly mention employers, its terms are broad enough to apply to the workplace.

Oregon Regulation OR-ADC 839-020-0050 Effective 1/12/2009.  Clarifies meal and rest period requirements in situations where providing a 30-minute uninterrupted meal period is not feasible. For additional information see our previous blog entry here.

US House Resolution 11 Effective 5/28/2007.  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Congress made retroactive to May 28, 2007, extends the time period for employees to assert pay discrimination claims by making each paycheck a discriminatory act; not just the initial pay determination. For further information, see Littler ASAP Paycheck Rule Revived for Pay Discrimination Claims with Signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Virginia Senate Bill 1264 Effective 7/1/2009.  Allows employers to utilize prepaid credit cards or a debit card without employee's consent for employees hired after January 1, 2010, when the employee has not designated a financial institution to receive direct deposit of the employee's wages.

Wisconsin Regulations DWD 272.01 et seq. Effective 7/24/2009.  Changes the state minimum wage to $7.25 an hour effective July 24, 2009. Also changes opportunity wage and allowance for boarding.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link