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

By Bill Allen

On May 8, 2013, in Wang v. Hearst Corp., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied certification under Rule 23 of a class of unpaid interns at Hearst Magazines.

First, the court found that Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement was not satisfied under the Supreme Court’s standard in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. because the plaintiffs could not “show anything more than a uniform policy of unpaid internship.” The plaintiffs’ evidence of a corporate-wide policy of classifying the proposed class members as unpaid interns was insufficient to establish commonality because the duties of the interns varied greatly from each other and from magazine to magazine. The court acknowledged that even after Dukes, “courts of this district have routinely found commonality in analogous misclassification cases,” but distinguished this case because the plaintiffs were not able to show a company-wide policy regarding their duties in addition to a company-wide policy regarding their classification. The court rejected the interns’ argument that the court should look to "the nature of the work that interns performed" to find commonality, stating that the “glaring problem” is that there is no common proof from which the court could determine the "nature" of the interns' work.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Stephen Fuchs

In a welcome decision for employers, Tracy v. NVR Inc., the federal District Court for the Western District of New York granted the employer’s motion to decertify a collective action under the FLSA and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case involved a putative class of Home Sales and Marketing Representatives (SMRs) who claimed they were misclassified as exempt outside sales representatives.

The key issue in the case was whether the SMRs satisfied the outside sales exemption requirement that they work away from the employer’s business for the requisite period of time each week. In denying certification of the Rule 23 state law class action, the Tracy court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, which held that class certification requires a classwide method of measuring damages, and Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which held that commonality requires not only common questions, but also common answers to those questions. Applying these principles, the court found that because the SMRs worked in different locations, under different supervisors, and performed duties outside of their offices in varying degrees and in different ways, their claims “as well as any determinations to be made concerning damages – are too highly individualized to form the basis for a class action.” Moreover, the court concluded, “the interests of judicial economy would not be served by the hundreds of fact-intensive ‘mini-trials’ that a class action of this nature would require.”

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Edward Berbarie and Henry Lederman

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York upheld a class action waiver in an employment arbitration agreement, sending the plaintiffs’ FLSA collective action claims to arbitration on an individualized basis. The plaintiffs, former sales representatives for United HealthCare, claimed that the class action waiver was unenforceable for several reasons. First, the plaintiffs claimed that participating in a collective action under the FLSA is a statutory right that cannot be waived. The court disagreed, finding that nothing in the FLSA or its legislative history establishes that the right to participate in a collective action is a non-waivable right. To the contrary, the court reasoned that because an employee is required to file a consent form in order to participate in a collective action under the FLSA, an employee certainly has the power to waive their participation in such an action. The plaintiffs next attempted to rely upon the Second Circuit’s opinion in In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 667 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2012), which found a class action waiver to be unenforceable because the practical effect of enforcing the waiver in that case would have precluded the plaintiffs from bringing their claims. The court also rejected this argument, noting that the Second Circuit made clear that class action waivers are not per se unenforceable, and finding that the plaintiffs in this case failed to show that arbitrating their FLSA claims on an individual basis would have been cost prohibitive. Lastly, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument, under the NLRB’s D.R. Horton decision, that class action waivers violate employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity. The court instead agreed with the Eighth Circuit’s recent decision in Owen v. Bristol Care, Inc., 702 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013), which rejected the NLRB’s rationale in D.R. Horton and held that class waivers are enforceable in relation to claims brought under the FLSA.

Photo credit: Logan Simmons

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York State Senate and Assembly recently passed a bill amending New York Labor Law section 193 to expand an employer's ability to make deductions from employee wages. The bill is currently awaiting delivery from the New York State Assembly to the governor's office for his approval. The governor's approval is virtually certain as his office previously submitted a memorandum supporting the amendment.

Once effective, the new law will amend Labor Law section 193 to allow employers to make additional wage deductions, with an employee's written consent, for:

• Prepaid legal plans;
• Purchases at certain charitable events;
• Discounted parking or passes, fare cards, or vouchers related to mass transit;
• Fitness, health club or gym memberships;
• Cafeteria, vending machines and pharmacy purchases at the employer's premises;
• Tuition, room, board and fees related to certain education institutions; and
• Certain child care expenses.

To learn more about the legislation and its potential implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, Wage Deductions Almost Legal in NY? Legislation Allowing Employers to Make Wage Deductions Awaits Governor's Signature, by Bruce Millman and Adam Colón.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By James Oh, Andrew Voss and Tracy Stott Pyles

After a trial to the court in September 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio entered judgment on January 5, 2012 in favor of Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, on all claims alleged against it by a nationwide class of Special Investigators who claimed they were misclassified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA and New York and California state wage laws.

The case was initially filed in September 2007 in federal court in California, and venue was transferred to the Southern District of Ohio, where Nationwide is headquartered. Notice to opt-in was issued nationwide to current and former Special Investigators, and ninety-one joined the action.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Milton Castro

In a collective and putative class action under New York’s overtime and minimum wage laws, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that the act of being a registered representative pursuant to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) does not in itself absolve an insurance agent from the “outside salesman” exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Gold v. New York Life Insurance Co.  In Gold, the plaintiff worked for New York Life Insurance Co. as an insurance agent. During his employment, the plaintiff was compensated on a purely commission basis and received no remuneration based on the number of hours he worked. In addition to selling traditional “fixed” insurance policies and annuities, the plaintiff also obtained “Series 6” and “Series 63” licenses, which permitted him to sell “registered” products, including variable life insurance policies and other products regulated by FINRA. With these licenses, Gold became a “registered representative” – a title which requires enhanced duties to clients under FINRA, such as the “Know Your Customer Rule” and the “Suitability Rule.” It was based on these enhanced duties that Gold, in an attempt to escape summary judgment, argued that he should not be considered an “outside salesman” under the FLSA, but rather a financial advisor. The court disagreed.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Sara Sheinkin and Andrew Marks

Beginning on May 5, 2011, employers in the hospitality industry who take a tip credit against their employees’ wages will be covered by three separate notice requirements, and compliance with all three is critical. Even if the employer does not take a tip credit against an employee’s wages, the first two notices discussed below are still required.

A.                 The New York State Regulations for the Hospitality Industry

1.                  What?

The New York State Regulations for the Hospitality Industry became effective January 1, 2011, and require that employers give employees written notice of their regular and overtime pay rates, the amount of any tip credit taken, if any, and the regular payday. 

This notice must also state that extra pay is required if tips are insufficient to bring the employee up to the basic minimum hourly rate.

See our blog New York Hospitality Wage Orders Revised for more information concerning the requirements of the Hospitality regulations.

2.                  Who?

The notice required by the Hospitality regulations must be given to all non-exempt employees working in New York for an employer who is covered by the regulations, whether or not the employer takes a tip credit against the employee’s wages.

3.                  When?

This notice must be provided to employees prior to the start of their employment and prior to any change in an employee’s rates of pay.

4.                  How?

The employer must provide this written notice to employees in English and any other language spoken by the employee as his or her primary language. This primary language requirement only applies if the Commissioner of the New York Department of Labor has made such notices available to employees in such language on the Department’s website.

Employers must have employees sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the notice and keep the acknowledgment on file for six years.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employers with operations in New York should already be aware of the new law called the Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) that goes into effect April 9, 2011. Among many other new requirements, this law requires that employees are given wage and other information, in writing, at the time of hire, and annually by February 1 of each year. Written notices may also be required when wage information or other information changes; and the law imposes new requirements for wage statements. (For more information, see Littler’s ASAP.)

The New York State Department of Labor has posted on its website template forms intended to comply with the new notice requirements of the WTPA. In addition to English templates, there are dual language forms for Spanish, Chinese and Korean. The forms may be found at http://www.labor.state.ny.us/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/lshmpg.shtm. We have been informed that dual language forms in Haitian-Creole, Polish and Russian are forthcoming. The Department has also issued guidelines concerning the WTPA in the form of FAQs that can be found at the same web address.

Upon our initial review, it appears that the sample forms seek to elicit information that is not required under the WTPA, and in other respects might deviate from the technical requirements of the WTPA. It is important to note that these are merely sample forms, and employers are not required to use them "as is" so long as the forms they do use comply with the WTPA's requirements.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York illustrates the impact of class waiver provisions in employment agreements. In Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP, plaintiff, a former accountant, brought a class action against Ernst and Young (“E&Y”) under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law, alleging that she and putative class members were unlawfully denied overtime compensation. E&Y moved to dismiss and compel arbitration of Sutherland’s claims on an individual basis pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement which included a class waiver provision.

In denying defendant’s motion, the court relied on In re American Express Merchants’ Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2nd Cir. 2009) (“Amex”). There, the Second Circuit invalidated a class waiver provision in an arbitration agreement, finding that it precluded plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights. The Amex court held that the enforceability of a class waiver provision should be determined by referencing several factors, including: (1) the provision’s fairness; (2) the individual plaintiff’s cost-to-recovery ratio; (3) the ability to recover attorneys’ fees and costs and thus obtain legal representation; and (4) the waiver’s effect on the company’s “ability to engage in unchecked market behavior.”

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a parting "holiday gift" to New York employers, Governor David Paterson, as one of his last official acts in office, signed on December 13, 2010, a sweeping reform of the New York Labor Law entitled the Wage Theft Prevention Act (the "WTP Act"). The WTP Act, which becomes effective on April 9, 2011, modifies numerous sections of the New York Labor Law and imposes new recordkeeping and notice obligations on virtually every company that employs people in the state. To learn more about the Act and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, Lame Duck Reform: New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act, by Barbara E. Hoey and Gary D. Shapiro, and read our previous post: New York Enacts Wage Theft Prevention Act.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we wrote last month, the New York State Department of Labor has issued amended wage regulations for restaurants and hotels effective January 1. The DOL has now issued a notification to employees that the employer must post the regulation’s requirements in a conspicuous place in the establishment. Note that the poster is somewhat misleading with respect to the overtime rate for tipped employees. Overtime for tipped employees is one and one half times the minimum wage less the tip credit.

The poster also mentions call-in pay and spread-of-hours pay. Call-in pay is additional hours at minimum wage owed to employees who are sent home early. Spread-of-hours pay is an additional hour of pay at minimum wage owed to any employee when the length of the interval between the beginning and end of his or her workday exceeds ten hours. It should be kept in mind that while employers will have until March 1, 2011, to implement the required changes, the changes must be retroactive to January 1, 2011. Therefore, it is imperative that employers begin keeping thorough records of hours worked and wages and tips paid.

This entry was written by Andrew Marks.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New York law has long prohibited employers from paying workers less than the minimum wage or failing to pay proper overtime. This newly enacted piece of legislation, the Wage Theft Prevention Act, now adds strict new penalties for failure to comply with minimum wage and overtime laws. The new law also amends current wage notification requirements for employers.

Under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, in the event of a wage payment violation, an employer may be liable for up to twice the amount that was due as wages as well as other penalties and legal fees. The law also prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under the statute.

Additionally, the new law requires notifications to be provided to employees in their native language at the time of hire and on or before each February 1st. Previously the law required such a notification to include the rate of pay and regular paydays. The new law adds several additional requirements to the contents of the notification, including more detail on the basis of pay (i.e., whether the employee is paid on a salary, hourly, piece or commission basis, etc.) and information regarding the employer, such as its address and phone number. There are also new detailed requirements concerning the acknowledgment of the required notification, and a new records retention requirement of 6 years.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The long-awaited revisions to New York's hospitality industry wage regulations have finally become official. They go into effect January 1, 2011, but full compliance is not required until March 1, 2011. Here are some highlights:

Minimum and Overtime Wage: The tip credit rate for food service workers is increased from $4.65 to $5.00 per hour. The new overtime rate for tipped food service workers will be $8.63. All nonexempt employees who work in the hospitality industry, including office workers employed by a hotel or restaurant, must be paid by the hour: shift pay, weekly salary or other non-hourly rate bases will no longer be permitted.

Spread of Hours: All nonexempt employees are eligible for spread of hours pay (i.e., an additional hour of pay at the minimum wage) if the time between the beginning and end of their workday exceeds ten hours.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New York recently enacted the “New York State Construction Industry Fair Play Act.” Under this law, which becomes effective on October 26, 2010, a construction worker is presumed to be an employee—as opposed to an independent contractor—unless the worker is a separate business entity, as defined by the law, or the worker: (1) is free from control and direction in performing the job, both under his or her contract and in fact; (2) the service performed is outside the usual course of business; and (3) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business that is similar to the service at issue. If all three criteria are met, the worker may be considered an independent contractor.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York State Department of Labor ("NY DOL") is in the process of combining separate restaurant and hotel industry minimum wage orders into a single wage order which will be called the Hospitality Industry Wage Order. Although the NY DOL has not yet issued regulations for this consolidated wage order, a Labor Commissioner Order dated November 5, 2009 foretells the major changes in store for non-exempt employees in the hospitality industry. For more information on the changes, see Littler’s ASAP Here’s A Tip: New York is Overhauling the Restaurant and Hotel Industry Wage Orders by Gerald T. Hathaway and Lisa M. Brauner.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several new wage and hour bills made it through various state legislatures during the second half of the year. Below is a wrap up of some new developments (including regulatory updates) from July 1st through December 31st. Click here to read our post on changes to state minimum wages.

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The federal minimum wage is set to increase to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. Additionally, 23 states will also increase the minimum wage for employers subject to state wage and hour laws. The majority of these increases take effect on July 24, 2009, but three states raise their minimum wage effective July 1, 2009.

In addition to noting the wage increase, employers should ensure that they are properly displaying a copy of the state’s current minimum wage poster in a conspicuous location in the workplace that notes the wage increase, even if the increase will not affect hourly employees at any particular workplace.

The following states have increased their state minimum wage:

Delaware
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

District of Columbia
• $8.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Federal
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Florida
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/2009

Idaho
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Illinois
• $8.00/hr. effective 7/1/09

Indiana
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Kentucky
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/1/09

Maryland
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Missouri
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Montana
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Nebraska
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Nevada
• If health benefits are available:
Effective 7/1/09 $6.55/hr (employers subject to the FLSA should see federal requirements)
• If the employer does not provide qualified health benefits:
Effective 7/1/09 $7.55/hr

New Jersey
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

New York
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/2009

North Carolina
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

North Dakota
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Oklahoma
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Pennsylvania
• $7.25/hr. (large employers) effective 7/24/09
• $7.25/hr. (small employers) effective 7/24/09

South Dakota
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Texas
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Utah
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Virginia
• $7.25/hr. effective 7/24/09

Wisconsin
• $7.25/hr effective 7/24/09
 

• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link