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

The district court granted the defendants’ motion to strike the untimely affidavits, reasoning that the late production of the affidavits was prejudicial to the defendants because the city’s entire litigation posture might have been different if these numbers had been provided earlier. In addition, the court noted, allowing the officers to put forth untimely evidence of damages would prolong the litigation by forcing the district court to allow the defendants to re-open discovery and re-depose the officers, which would be unfair to the defendants, waste judicial resources, and fail to deter future violations of discovery obligations. The district court then granted summary judgment for the defendants because, without the affidavits, the court concluded that the officers could not satisfy their burden of proving the amount and extent of their alleged overtime work.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavits. Perhaps even more significantly, the Eighth Circuit delineated the standard of evidence required when the employer has not kept accurate time records. The court pointed out that the “relaxed” evidentiary standard under Mt. Clemens only applies when the existence of damages is certain. Thus, in this case, the plaintiffs had an initial burden of showing they carried flex hours forward into a new work week (in violation of the FLSA), or went entirely unpaid for those hours – a burden they did not satisfy. Although the officers provided evidence of the flextime practice, without the untimely affidavits there was no evidence of specific dates and hours worked, or money owed. “The city’s failure to provide accurate time records reduces the officers’ burden, but does not eliminate it,” the court stated. “Even though [Mt. Clemens] relaxes the burden of proof, the officers must still prove the existence of damages . . . . Without record evidence of a single hour worked over forty hours that did not receive overtime wages or flextime, the officers’ unsupported estimations of the unpaid hours due are not enough.”

Carmody provides welcome clarity to the often misconstrued “relaxed” evidentiary standard to be applied when, as in flextime or misclassification cases, employers have not maintained records of hours worked by employees they believed, in good faith, were not entitled to overtime wages.

Photo credit: Matthew John Hollinshead

The court first addressed the enforceability of the class action waiver in light of Concepcion. In Concepcion, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement and invalidated a state law that conditioned the enforceability of such an agreement on the availability of class-wide arbitration. Although the plaintiff argued that Concepcion was inapposite because its holding should be limited to the preemption of a California state law, the Fourth Circuit found that “Concepcion sweeps more broadly,” and that its holding “was not merely an assertion of federal preemption, but plainly prohibited application of the general contract defense of unconscionability to invalidate an otherwise valid arbitration agreement.”

Next, the court found that the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to show that the fee-splitting provision would prevent him from vindicating his statutory rights (he merely offered evidence of what arbitrators were charging in another locale and offered no evidence of the value of his claim). Lastly, the court found that the challenge to the one-year limitations provision should not have been decided by the district court because the term was applicable to the franchise agreement generally and not part of the arbitration clause. As a result, and because the scope of a motion to compel arbitration is restricted to challenges specific to the arbitration clause, the plaintiff’s challenge to the limitations period should be decided by an arbitrator.

This opinion is significant because it is yet another federal appellate court opinion upholding a class action waiver in the context of a collective action, and it articulates an expansive view of the holding of Concepcion.

Photo credit: Logan Simmons

In Ross, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s pre-Dukes certification of a class of hourly bank employees who alleged off-the-clock work and a class of assistant branch managers who alleged they were misclassified as exempt. The court of appeals found that the Supreme Court’s discussion of the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality standard in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), a gender discrimination class action, did not change the commonality analysis in the case. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit distinguished Dukes as a case requiring individual inquiry into the discriminatory intent of thousands of managers, whereas it found that plaintiffs’ assertion of an “unofficial policy” of not paying for all time worked was susceptible to a “common answer that potentially drives the resolution of this litigation.” With respect to the exemption claims, the Seventh Circuit stated that “an individualized assessment of each [class member’s] job duties is not relevant to a claim that an unlawful company-wide policy exists to deny [class members] overtime pay.” Finally, the Seventh Circuit rejected the company’s argument that, in accordance with Dukes, it was entitled to present individualized affirmative defenses to the exemption claims, reasoning that Dukes only applied to claims for equitable relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and not claims for monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3).

The employer sought a writ of certiorari on the following two questions: (1) Whether it was consistent with Dukes to hold that a defendant in a Rule 23(b)(3) class action has no right to raise statutory affirmative defenses on an individual basis if the class seeks only monetary relief; and (2) whether the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality standard is satisfied when a class claims the denial of overtime pay, without resolving whether dissimilarities in the class would preclude it from establishing liability on a class-wide basis.

Because the Seventh Circuit’s Ross decision did not expressly discuss the common proof of damages as an aspect of class acertification, it is unclear how Comcast will be applied on remand. However, the district court concluded that individualized damages issues were generally not relevant to certification decisions, stating: “Courts have not traditionally found individualized questions of damages to prevent class certification.” After Comcast, that may no longer be true.
 

The district court also found that the company’s individualized defenses weighed against certification. First, the district court noted contradictions between the plaintiffs’ and managers’ declarations as to whether overtime was denied. “In order to resolve the question of liability, a fact-finder would need to determine whether the employee or the manager was being truthful,” and resolving the dispute as to one plaintiff and one manager would not resolve the issue for any of the others. Second, the district court found that cross-examination about statements by particular plaintiffs in their declarations and depositions would not resolve credibility disputes as to other plaintiffs. Such individualized defenses “destroy the efficiency sought to be gained through a collective action.”

Finally, the court found that a representative sampling of plaintiffs would prejudice the parties. The court stated that “the multitude of differences in the factual and employment settings of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ inability to provide evidence of an overarching illegal policy, and concerns of individualized defenses, . . . [as well as] fairness and procedural considerations” required decertification. Although mindful of the potential problem that would result if hundreds of opt-in plaintiffs initiated suits on an individual basis, the court noted that “lower costs and pooling of resources are not the only considerations. Any efficiency gained through bringing this action collectively would be outweighed by the substantial likelihood of ‘mini-trials’ and the risk of prejudice to both parties.”

While this case provides additional case authority to support decertification arguments such as individualized factual settings and the resulting “mini-trials,” it is perhaps most helpful in its commentary on the need to resolve, on an individualized basis, factual disputes and credibility issues.

Photo credit: Alina555

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the clothes at issue in this case – flame-retardant pants and jacket, work gloves, work boots, a hard hat, safety glasses, ear plugs, and a hood – are clothes under section 203(o), and therefore the time spent putting on and taking off such items are not compensable. To the extent the hard hat, glasses, and ear plugs were not technically “clothes,” the court noted that putting on these items did not qualify as compensable “work” because the time spent in such activity was de minimis. Accordingly, U.S. Steel was not required to compensate its employees for the time spent changing into and out of work clothes.

The conclusion reached by the Seventh Circuit in Sandifer conflicts with Ninth Circuit authority holding that “special protective gear [is] different in kind from typical clothing” and is not “clothes” under section 203(o). Still, the Fourth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have adopted a different definition – one that includes anything one “wears,” including “accessories” such as ear plugs and safety glasses.

The time it takes for an individual employee to don or doff work related clothing may seem inconsequential, but when such time is aggregated in class and collective actions it can be significant. Thus, the Supreme Court’s resolution of what constitutes “changing clothes” in the context of section 203(o) may have a significant impact on employers nationwide.

Photo credit: Matt Collingwood

After a complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, that agency investigated the situation and found no violation of the FLSA. Likewise, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas found no FLSA violation and granted Redland’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the employees argued that the FLSA prohibits an employer from changing an existing workweek for the purpose of reducing employee overtime, and that Redland’s claim of administrative efficiency was pretextual. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, noting that although the statute does not define workweek, a Department of Labor regulation provides a meaning to the term. Under federal regulations, a workweek is defined as:

a fixed and regularly reoccurring period of 168 hours – seven consecutive 24-hour periods. It need not coincide with the calendar week but may begin on any day and at any hour of the day . . . . Once the beginning time of an employee’s workweek is established, it remains fixed regardless of the schedule of hours worked by him.

Citing numerous cases, the Eighth Circuit opined that “an employer does not violate the FLSA merely because, under a consistently designated workweek, its employees earn fewer hours of overtime than they would if the workweek was more favorably aligned with their work schedules.” The court found the FLSA requires that “the starting date remain constant and that the employees not work more than 40 hours within the 168 hour week without receiving overtime compensation. After noting that it is “aware of no contrary authority,” the court held that “the FLSA does not prescribe how an employer must initially establish its ‘workweek’ for overtime purposes.”

Going further, the Eighth Circuit then held that the FLSA does not limit an employer’s ability to change an existing workweek designation so long as the change is intended to be permanent. Federal regulations provide that: “The beginning of the workweek may be changed if the change is intended to be permanent and is not designed to evade the overtime requirements of the Act.” The court found that no employees had contested the permanence, but rather argued that Redland had changed the workweek to evade the FLSA’s overtime requirement. The court disagreed that there was any such “intent” requirement in the FLSA, reasoning that contemporary authority holds that reducing payroll expenses through a reduction in overtime is not contrary to the FLSA’s purposes. The court explained that an employer can make scheduling changes to avoid overtime and still comport with the FLSA. Thus, the Eighth Circuit concluded that “[s]o long as the change is intended to be permanent, and it is implemented in accordance with the FLSA, the employer’s reasons for adopting the change are irrelevant.”

While the Eighth Circuit’s decision is illustrative on how at least one circuit court interprets the FLSA regulations, it is important to note that the result might be different under state law. In Seymore v. Metson Marine, Inc., a California Court of Appeal evaluated a similar situation under the California Labor Code and determined that employers may designate a workweek that differs from the schedules of their employees if the reason for the modified worksheet has a bona fide business reason “which does not include the primary objective of avoiding the obligations of overtime.”

The Eighth Circuit specifically referenced the analysis from Seymore and noted that that decision was premised on California law, which is more protective than the FLSA. The Eighth Circuit was quick to point out that the FLSA analysis by the Seymore court “was wrong.” The Eighth Circuit’s not-so-subtle language presents a cautionary tale for all wage and hour practitioners: avoid conflating the federal law controlling the application and interpretation of the FLSA with the state law that controls similar state wage and hour laws.

Photo credit: Matthew John Hollinshead

The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) does not include language tracking the FLSA’s fluctuating workweek provision. Rather, employers utilizing the fluctuating workweek method in Pennsylvania have relied on 34 Pa. Code section 231.43(d)(3), which provides:

No employer may be deemed to have violated [the PMWA] by employing an employee for a workweek in excess of [40 hours] if, under an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and the employee before performance of the work, the amount paid to the employee for the number of hours worked by him in the workweek in excess of [40 hours] . . . [i]s computed at a rate not less than 1½ times the rate established by the agreement or understanding as the basic rate to be used in computing overtime compensation thereunder. . . .

In Foster and Cerutti, the court held that section 231.43(d)(3) requires overtime payment at a rate of “1½ times” the regular rate, and does not authorize the “½ time” calculation used under the FLSA’s version of the fluctuating workweek.

In Foster, the court did not dispute that section 231.43(d)(3) may authorize the employer to use the fluctuating workweek method to calculate an employee’s regular hourly rate. However, the court concluded that the employer must then pay overtime at a rate of one-and-one-half times that hourly rate for all overtime hours worked – in addition to the employee’s full salary. This effectively results in employees earning “double time and a half” for overtime hours.

To better understand how this might work in Pennsylvania, consider the following example. An employee is paid a salary of $400 per week and works 50 hours in a week. Under both the FLSA and the PMWA, the employee’s regular hourly rate would be $8 per hour ($400 / 50 hours). Under the FLSA fluctuating workweek method, the employee would be owed an additional $40 as an overtime premium ($8/hour x ½ x 10 hours), or $440 total. Under Pennsylvania law as described in Foster and Cerutti, however, the employee would be owed an overtime premium of $120 ($8/hour x 1½ x 10 hours), for a total of $520.

In Foster, the employer argued that the fluctuating workweek method complies with the “1½ times” requirement because the employee’s salary is compensation for all hours worked, and thus the employee receives the “1 times” component of the “1½ times” overtime obligation via the salary payment, leaving only the “½ times” component as the overtime premium. In our view, this is the correct interpretation of the applicable provision of the Pennsylvania Code. The Foster court rejected this interpretation, however, calling it a “textbook example of trying to force a square peg into a round hole.”

In our view, by focusing solely on the “1½ times” language of section 231.43(d), the Foster and Cerutti decisions overlooked that section 231.43(d) does not require payment of the employee’s entire salary in addition to the “1½ times” the amount determined to be the employee’s hourly rate. In fact, section 231.43(d) does not even mention the concept of “salary” as a necessary prerequisite for compliance with that section. It would seem, therefore, that an employer and employee should be permitted to agree that for purposes of Pennsylvania law the employee’s “salary” is simply a tool that is used to determine the employee’s “basic rate to be used in computing overtime” (which would be determined by dividing the salary by all hours worked). Then, the employee would be paid that “basic rate” for the first 40 hours, and “1½ times” that “basic rate” for all overtime hours. Following the above example, the employee’s “basic rate” would be $8 per hour ($400 / 50 hours), and the employee would be paid $8 per hour for the first 40 hours (or $320), and $12 per hour for the 10 overtime hours (or $120), for a total of $440. The end result would be payment of the same amount authorized under the FLSA, while still complying with the “1½ times” requirement of Pennsylvania law. While this approach may enable employers to continue using the fluctuating workweek method in Pennsylvania, we note that the Pennsylvania Code requires that there be an “agreement or understanding” about the approach before the work is performed. Thus, employers should carefully consider whether their existing fluctuating workweek policies provide employees with sufficient information to understand how their overtime will be calculated for purposes of the FLSA and also for purposes of Pennsylvania law. Also, we emphasize that Foster and Cerutti did not endorse (or even consider) this potential approach, and we anticipate further challenges. Employers who continue to utilize the fluctuating workweek method in Pennsylvania should take note of Foster and Cerutti and should recognize the risks associated with continuing to utilize this practice in Pennsylvania.

Photo credit: Matthew John Hollinshead

Faced with an FLSA collective action regarding automatic meal break deductions for the first time, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated and experienced a common FLSA injury. It elaborated on the Sixth Circuit standard for decertifying a collective action under FLSA Section 216(b) at the final stage, which occurs after conditional certification and near the end of discovery. The court stated that this stage warrants a “stricter standard” than at the conditional certification stage, considering differences in employment settings, the availability of different individualized defenses, and the fairness and procedural impact of proceeding as a class action.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that there was insufficient evidence of a common injury as a result of the automatic deduction policy and that the plaintiff’s common theory of injury was essentially nothing more than a critique of the policy. The court emphasized, however, that such a policy, by itself, is lawful under the FLSA and would not alone establish the similarity necessary to maintain a collective action.

The court also agreed that different workplace experiences regarding department procedures to reverse deductions, training, and oversight outweighed any similarities alleged by the plaintiff. The court rejected the plaintiff’s failure to monitor theory based on some employees’ failure to report work during meals breaks, stating that employers could not be required to pay for work where they did not know and had no reason to know about the work. But the court left unresolved the question of whether an employer’s failure to monitor could ever form a basis for certification.

Frye is a welcome decision for healthcare employers facing the continuing threat of FLSA collective actions based on automatic meal break deduction policies. The case is particularly helpful where employers can show that employees understand the policies and procedures to reverse any automatic deduction and have been paid for missed breaks when they have followed the employer’s procedures.

To learn more about the decision, please see Littler's ASAP, Sixth Circuit Upholds Decertification of FLSA Collective Action Challenging Automatic Meal Break Deductions, by Paul Prather, Lisa Leach, and Alex Boals.

Photo credit: MBPhoto, Inc.

The court found that the employer’s decision to change the exempt status of employees in the particular sub-department where plaintiffs worked did not constitute evidence that the employer’s original classification of the employees was wrong or unlawful. With respect to the plaintiffs’ second argument, the court stated that although plaintiffs faced a light burden, they at least had to demonstrate “a reasonable basis for crediting their assertions that aggrieved individuals exist in the broad class that they propose.” Because the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence to support a finding that members of the proposed class were similarly situated, the court denied certification.

Proper employee classification is something that can impact every employer. Employee classification is also an area where the applicable law is constantly developing and employers sometimes have to make reactionary adjustments. Knowing that employee reclassification does not automatically create a potential class of employees should provide even more encouragement for employers to make sure employee classifications are consistent with the most current law.

Though Judge Marshall’s holding will not prevent future class action filings, it is another arrow in the quiver of employers who must vigorously defend against class actions from their inception. We encourage employers to contact experienced labor and employment counsel with questions and concerns about properly classifying new and current employees.

Photo credit: Alina555

Plaintiff Nickolas Hickton, a former assistant manager at Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Pittsburgh, filed a nationwide collective action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that he and others similarly situated were misclassified as exempt, and were due back wages for overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees under the FLSA. Hickton named both Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Pittsburgh and Enterprise Holdings, Inc. as defendants. By orders of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, similar actions pending in other federal courts were transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Hickton filed an amended master complaint, alleging that Enterprise Holdings was liable as a joint employer of the plaintiffs who worked for the various subsidiaries operating in different states.

The holding company moved for summary judgment on the ground that it was not a joint employer and thus not liable under the FLSA. The district court granted the motion and the Third Circuit affirmed on appeal. The Third Circuit first cited the governing statute, which defines “employer” as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.” The court then noted that the regulations provide that an entity may be found to be a joint employer “[w]here the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer.” The court then cited Third Circuit precedent holding that the degree of control over essential terms and conditions of employment is the touchstone for joint employer status:

“[W]here two or more employers exert significant control over the same employees – [whether] from the evidence it can be shown that they share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment – they constitute ‘joint employers’ under the FLSA.”

The court held that the test for joint employment under the FLSA is broader than the test used under other statutes such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII because the FLSA provides for joint employment status where there is “indirect” as well as “direct” control over the relevant employees. Accordingly, the court set forth the Enterprise test for evaluating joint employer status under the FLSA: (1) authority to hire and fire employees; (2) authority to promulgate work rules and assignments, and set conditions of employment, including compensation, benefits and hours; (3) day-to-day supervision, including employee discipline; and (4) control of employee records, including payroll, insurance, taxes and the like. The court stressed that these criteria are not exhaustive and should not be blindly applied, that there may be other indicia of “significant control,” and that the joint employer determination must be based on an assessment of the “economic realities of the work relationship.”

On the facts at issue, the court found that Enterprise Holdings did not meet elements (1), (2) or (3), and, as to element (4), it did not exercise or maintain any control over employee records. The court rejected the argument that the provision of guidelines and manuals rose to the level of “significant control,” reasoning that they were suggested policies and practices, the subsidiaries had the discretion as to whether to adopt them, and the holding company’s recommendations were akin to those of a third-party consultant. The court concluded that, based on the evidence, no reasonable juror could find that Enterprise Holdings exercised significant control over the assistant managers under the expanded test articulated by the court, and affirmed the district court’s decision.

Thus, under the Enterprise test, to reduce the likelihood of a finding of joint employer status, a holding company or parent company providing shared services to a subsidiary or affiliate should consider making the shared services optional and refrain from exercising significant control over the day-to-day operations of the subsidiary or affiliate.

In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit first concluded that the district court correctly decided that the protective gear worn by U.S. Steel employees consisting of flame-retardant pants and jacket, work gloves, work boots, a hard hat, safety glasses, ear plugs and a hood, were plainly work clothes for the most part, and therefore “clothes” under the Act. To the extent the hard hat, glasses, and ear plugs were not technically “clothes,” the court summarily dismissed an argument that putting on this particular equipment qualified as compensable “work” because the time spent in such activity was de minimis. Accordingly, U.S. Steel was not required to compensate its employees for the time spent changing into and out of work clothes.

If clothes-changing time was not compensable, the Seventh Circuit decided that to require the employer to pay for the travel time – walking between the locker room and the work station – was “puzzling and paradoxical.” The court noted that the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254, rendered time spent “walking, riding, or traveling” to and from the place an employee performs his “principal activity” non-compensable. If Section 3(o) had not applied, thereby making clothes-changing time compensable as a principal activity, the travel time would likewise have been compensable. But here, the employer and union had decided that clothes-changing time was not work time, and therefore need not be compensated. Therefore, changing clothes could not be a “principal activity” that the employee was employed to perform.

The Seventh Circuit noted the Supreme Court’s decision in Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956), holding that when an employer requires an employee to don and doff work clothes at the workplace, then donning and doffing are integral and indispensable to the employee’s primary duty, and therefore compensable under the Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), extended this holding to conclude that time spent walking from a principal activity (changing clothes) to a work station is likewise compensable, and not within the exemption created by the Portal-to-Portal Act. But the Steiner Court noted the significance of the fact that there was no collective bargaining agreement in place that would make clothes-changing time non-compensable in that case. Section 3(o) permitted the parties by agreement to take clothes-changing time outside the scope of the employee’s “principal activity,” which is exactly what U.S. Steel and its unions had done. Because clothes-changing was non-compensable and not a “principal activity,” walking to the employees’ work stations was likewise non-compensable under section 254. The Seventh Circuit further grounded its analysis in the stated legislative purpose for enacting the Portal-to-Portal Act in 1947, and Congress’s concern with the disruption of the workplace caused by a series of Supreme Court decisions that had forced employers to compensate for travel time and clothes-changing time.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged the shifting positions articulated by the U.S. Department of Labor on the meaning of the term “clothes” in Section 3(o) of the Act, and the compensability of travel time under these circumstances. During the Clinton Administration, the Department took a narrow view of the term, but broadened its definition in a subsequent opinion letter issued during the Bush Administration. After the change in administrations in 2009, the Department reverted to its earlier position, and also rejected the Bush Administration’s position on “principal activity.” Although “[s]uch oscillation is a normal phenomenon of American politics,” the Seventh Circuit found nothing in the Department’s position that could assist the court in determining the legal question – other than an echo of the plaintiff’s arguments and a noted disagreement with the previous administration’s position. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that it owed no deference to the Department’s interpretation of the statute.

Photo credit: Avatar_023

In that case the plaintiff worked as a medical technologist for Bostwick Laboratories. The plaintiff claimed that she and several coworkers met with the company’s chief operating officer to report that their supervisor was altering their timesheets to reflect that they had not worked the overtime that they had recorded, when they had worked the overtime hours. According to the plaintiff, the chief operating officer told them that he would look into the issue, but rather than resolving it, her employment was terminated on the following Monday. The plaintiff sued Bostwick Laboratories in the Eastern District of Virginia, claiming FLSA retaliation, among other things. Bostwick Laboratories moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that an employee’s informal internal company complaint regarding a possible FLSA violation was not protected activity under the FLSA. The district court agreed, based on the then-precedential Fourth Circuit decision in Ball v. Memphis Bar-B-Q Co., and without having the guidance yet of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kasten, and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that “filed any complaint” includes internal company complaints, joining the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits and leaving the Second Circuit’s minority position on this issue in doubt. In reaching its decision, the Fourth Circuit reasoned that protecting internal company complaints would further the remedial purposes of the FLSA and was consistent with agency enforcement positions.

While some circuits are still split on the issue of whether the FLSA retaliation protections apply to internal complaints, employers should investigate and remedy oral or written internal complaints regarding wage and hour violations, and strictly prohibit retaliation against those who make such complaints. For more information on FLSA retaliation, see the DOL’s recently posted Fact Sheet on FLSA retaliation.

Photo credit: Diego Cervo

The court, however, rejected the store managers’ contention that their primary duty was customer service and satisfaction. Instead, the court recognized that AutoZone placed significant responsibilities on its store managers: they were the only store-level employees who conducted staff evaluations and hiring interviews; they were the only employees (with the exception of the customer sales manager) eligible for a bonus based on store performance; they were responsible for the completion of manual tasks and coordinating employee scheduling; and how (and when) they completed even manual tasks had an impact on overall store performance, a fact reflected in AutoZone’s criteria for evaluating their performance. The court also rejected the argument that AutoZone had such extensive standardized processes and policies that only their manual labor mattered to store operations, pointing out that the essence of supervisory work is ensuring compliance with corporate policies.

The court noted that even though some store managers may perform manual tasks more than 50% of the time, that factor did not weigh significantly in this matter since many agreed they performed other tasks simultaneously with their manual tasks and retained overall managerial responsibility for store operations while performing manual tasks. The court deemed the store managers to be “relatively free from direct supervision,” pointing out that, regardless of the varying amount of time that district managers spent monitoring stores remotely, “they were the eyes and ears of the [District Managers]” and that they were present and supervising the work in their stores “by their own calculations for hundreds of hours a month without the physical presence of a District Manager.”

Ultimately, the court found that AutoZone had properly classified the store managers as exempt executives, stating in its conclusion that the alleged “lack of creativity and overwork may be an undesirable by-product of working for a national chain in a struggling economy, but this does not entitle plaintiffs to overtime pay.”

Photo credit: MBPhoto, Inc.

In Harris, the California Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal, which held that the claims adjusters were “production” workers because their work “ investigating claims, determining coverage, setting reserves, etc. is not carried on at the level of policy or general operations, so it falls on the production side of the dichotomy.” Thus, the lower appellate court concluded, they did not perform in a role that was “directly related to management policies or general business operations” and were therefore not exempt administrative employees. The California Supreme Court disagreed.

First, the court rejected the Court of Appeal’s almost exclusive reliance on the administrative/production worker dichotomy analysis. The rigid application of this analysis, the court stated, ignores the limitations of the dichotomy and results in a “strained attempt to fit the operations of modern-day post-industrial service-oriented businesses into the analytical framework formulated in the industrial climate of the late 1940s.” The court clarified, however, that it was not holding that “the dichotomy can never be used as an analytical tool. We merely hold that the Court of Appeal improperly applied the administrative/production worker dichotomy as a dispositive test.”

Second, the court clarified that under the federal regulations California looks to for guidance in applying state exemption classifications, work that is “directly related to management policies or general business operations” includes “advising management, planning, negotiating, and representing the company.” The court admonished the Court of Appeal for interpreting this prong of the administrative exemption too narrowly. In other words, work may be directly related to management policies or general business operations even if it is not performed at the corporate policy level. In this regard the court pointed out that the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts, applying recent applicable federal regulations, have determined claims adjusters satisfy the administrative exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act “if they perform activities such as interviewing witnesses, making recommendations regarding coverage and value of claims, determining fault and negotiating settlements.”

Third, the court emphasized the importance of assessing the language of the relevant statutes and wage orders as applied to the particular facts of each case, noting “the difficulty in relying on the particular role of employees in one enterprise to deduce a rule applicable to another kind of business.”

The Harris decision therefore is a victory for Liberty Mutual, but it is also a good reminder to California employers of the importance of reviewing the particular circumstances and actual job duties of their exempt administrative employees – as well as their other exempt employees – not just relying on their job descriptions to determine that the exempt classifications are appropriate.

Photo credit: Digiphoto

The plaintiff then allegedly spent the remaining amount of time performing other tasks in preparation for the beginning of her subordinates’ shifts. At her deposition, the plaintiff claimed that it would have been “a hassle” to show up at 5 am and still get her subordinates prepared in time for the beginning of their shifts which also began at 5 am. However, the plaintiff never told her supervisors, who would typically arrive 2-3 hours after her, that she was clocking in early or performing any pre-shift work. She also never requested overtime for this work, reported any errors on her paycheck relating to the same nor disclosed at any meetings with her supervisors that her schedule needed to be adjusted to accommodate this work.

The plaintiff later resigned, then sued Summit, claiming unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The district court, however, found that the plaintiff’s pre-shift activities were noncompensable, “preliminary” activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. The Portal-to-Portal Act, which amended the FLSA, holds that employers cannot be held liable "on account of . . . activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to [principal activities,] which occur either prior to the time on any particular workday at which such employee commences, or subsequent to the time on any particular workday at which he ceases, such principal [activities]."¹ Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, which the plaintiff appealed to the 7th Circuit.

On appeal, the 7th Circuit looked as if it would overturn the district court’s holding. First, the court found that the plaintiff’s pre-shift work was actually non-preliminary. The court based this finding, among other things, on the fact that the defendant apparently derived significant benefits from the plaintiff’s pre-shift preparations. Next, the court found that the “de minimis” doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff’s pre-shift work. Under this doctrine, the current consensus among the courts is that a few seconds or minutes of work beyond an employee’s scheduled working hours can be disregarded, when in dispute, even though such time would otherwise be considered compensable. The court noted, though, that the plaintiff had alleged pre-shift time of 15-45 minutes (excluding the 5-minute break), which goes beyond the well-known 10-minute rule-of-thumb. Because the defendant could not point to any caselaw that had found pre-shift time more than 10 minutes in length to be “de minimis,” the court rejected the doctrine’s applicability.

Despite these findings, however, the court ultimately held that the plaintiff’s pre-shift time was not compensable because she failed to show that her supervisors had actual or even constructive knowledge of her overtime work. First, the court noted how the plaintiff conceded that most employees who clocked in early did not perform work until their shift began. Next, the court noted that the plaintiff's behavior did not raise any red flags. For instance, the plaintiff did not record her pre-shift time – rather she consistently indicated on her time cards that she arrived at the beginning of her shift, not before it. Moreover, she attended weekly meetings with her supervisors in which schedules were discussed, but never disclosed that she had worked pre-shift time or complained about the same. In sum, the supervisors had no reason to know that she had worked unpaid overtime. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s FLSA claim.²

Although this case does represent a win for the employer, it is important to note that the 7th Circuit did not side with employers on the “preliminary” argument or the de minimis doctrine. Instead, the employer prevailed only because it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s off-the-clock work. Based on these considerations, employers should keep the following in mind:

• A timekeeping system should be comprehensive and accurate. All employees should be trained upon hire regarding how the timekeeping system works.
• If an employee complains to a supervisor about having to work a few minutes before and/or after his or her scheduled shift, it is likely that this will be considered notice such that the pre- or post-shift work time may be compensable under the FLSA.
• Work performed by an employee that is integral and indispensible to his or her principal work, or the principal work of others, such as distributing materials or readying a workstation, is likely not “preliminary” work and thus may be compensable under the FLSA.

¹ 29 U.S.C. § 254(a) (emphasis added).

² The court also affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s Indiana Wage Payment Statute claim for the same reasons.

Photo credit: mbbirdy

Under section 3(k) of the FLSA, a “sale” includes “any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale or other disposition.” The DOL’s regulations elaborate that sales “include the transfer of title to tangible property, and in certain cases, of tangible and valuable evidences of intangible property.”

Another relevant DOL regulation distinguishes sales work from “promotion work.” Under the regulations, promotion work is a type of activity:

often performed by persons who make sales, which may or may not be exempt outside sales work, depending upon the circumstances under which it is performed. Promotional work that is actually performed incidental to and in conjunction with an employee’s own outside sales or solicitations is exempt work. On the other hand, promotional work that is incidental to sales made, or to be made, by someone else is not exempt outside sales work. An employee who does not satisfy the requirements of this subpart may still qualify as an exempt employee under other subparts of this rule.

There has been a split among the courts, most notably the Ninth and Second Circuits, as to whether pharmaceutical representatives’ activities constitute sales because PSRs are prohibited by law from directly selling pharmaceuticals to physicians. The DOL has consistently taken the position that PSRs do not qualify for the outside sales exemption because they do not transfer ownership or property. The Second Circuit relied heavily on and agreed with the DOL’s interpretation and assessment in a 2010 decision.

In contrast, in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., the Ninth Circuit declined to give deference to the DOL’s “current interpretation of the regulations.” In addition to noting the district court’s refusal to consider the DOL’s interpretation because it was “inconsistent with the statutory language and its prior pronouncements, [and] [] also def[ying] common sense," the Ninth Circuit reviewed prior Supreme Court decisions on the issue and stated, among other things, that the Secretary’s interpretation of an unambiguous statute by “an opinion letter, enforcement guidelines, or the like . . . is merely ‘entitled to respect’ to the extent the interpretation has the ‘power to persuade’ the court.”

The DOL’s amicus brief did not persuade the Ninth Circuit, which concluded that PSRs did, in fact, qualify for the outside sales exemption. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that:

Plaintiffs' contention that they do not "sell" to doctors ignores the structure and realities of the heavily regulated pharmaceutical industry. It is undisputed that federal law prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from directly selling prescription medications to patients. Plaintiffs suggest that despite being hired for their sales experience, being trained in sales methods, encouraging physicians to prescribe their products, and receiving commission-based compensation tied to sales, their job cannot "in some sense" be called selling. This view ignores the reality of the nature of the work of detailers, as it has been carried out for decades.

As for the DOL’s distinction between “selling” and “promoting,” the appellate court stated that such a distinction “is only meaningful if the employee does not engage in any activities that constitute ‘selling’ under the Act.” The court further reasoned that:

PSRs are driven by their own ambition and rewarded with commissions when their efforts generate new sales. They receive their commissions in lieu of overtime and enjoy a largely autonomous work-life outside of an office. The pharmaceutical industry's representatives — detail men and women — share many more similarities than differences with their colleagues in other sales fields, and we hold that they are exempt from the FLSA overtime-pay requirement.

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to not only resolve the numerous class and collective actions that have challenged the outside sales exemption in the pharmaceutical industry, but also to provide clarity as to the appropriate deference owed to the DOL’s opinions as expressed in amicus briefs and similar interpretive position statements.

The FLSA Part 541 regulations define the exemptions in Section 13(a)(1) of the Act – executive, administrative, professional, computer and outside sales employees. Part 541 does not cover the FLSA Section 7(i) exemption for commissioned sales employees of a retail or service establishment. The New Jersey regulations no longer define the administrative exemption to include “an employee whose primary duty consists of sales activity and who receives at least 50 percent of his or her total compensation from commissions and a total compensation of not less than $400.00 per week” – and neither do the FLSA Part 541 regulations. Thus, it appears that New Jersey no longer recognizes an exemption for commissioned inside sales employees at all.

A representative from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development has confirmed that this change was inadvertent, and that they are doing everything possible to expedite a fix to the problem. However, because reversing the change will require notice and comment rulemaking, the exemption may be unavailable in New Jersey for six months or more.

Although it is unlikely that the New Jersey Labor Department will begin citing employers for misclassifying commissioned inside sales employees as exempt, employers may soon be facing private lawsuits. Thus, we recommend that any employer relying on the Section 7(i) exemption for New Jersey employees should quickly assess whether such employees continue to remain exempt.

*Tammy McCutchen, a shareholder resident in the Washington, D.C. office, was the primary author of the 2004 revisions to the FLSA Part 541 regulations while serving as Administrator of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.

The employer in Norceide v. Cambridge Health Alliance invoked the Klinghoffer rule in response to claims brought by current and former employees. Those employees alleged that their employer failed to compensate them for the time they worked during meal breaks and before and after shifts. The employer then sought to dismiss those claims because the total weekly average wage paid to the employees divided by the hours they actually worked equaled or exceeded the applicable minimum wage.

Judge Gertner, in a decision issued shortly before she retired from the bench, rejected the Klinghoffer rule. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Gertner stated that, when enacting the FLSA, Congress sought to protect workers and ensure that they received “a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.” Judge Gertner indicated that this purpose could not be served by looking at all of the hours worked during a workweek; instead, each hour must be given significance. Accordingly, the employees could seek the minimum wage for any hours for which they were not paid. If other courts follow this conclusion, employer liability for wage and hour violations will increase, since each hour an employee works unpaid could give rise to a minimum wage violation.

Despite these serious responsibilities, the federal Department of Labor sued the DSHS, contending that some of the DSHS social workers did not qualify for the learned professional exemption. The district court disagreed as a matter of law, granting summary judgment for the DSHS. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed that victory.

The Ninth Circuit held that the touchstone to the “learned professional” exemption was whether the DSHS required the social workers to have completed a “prolonged course of specialized intellectual study.” This was where DSHS came up short. If the social worker applicant had a degree within one of a broad range of fields—including anthropology, criminal justice, education and gerontology—DSHS did not inquire further into what specific courses the applicant had taken. This practice thus suggested that DSHS required only general academic training, even though “apprenticeship and experience might develop the advanced skills necessary for effective performance as a social worker.” Neither the requirement of 18 months' experience in social work nor a six week mandatory training program were sufficient to put DSHS over the hump toward the learned professional exemption.

As a result, the court found that DSHS had not met its burden of proving that its social workers had a prolonged course of specialized instruction, and thus they did not prevail, at least not yet. DSHS will proceed to trial and perhaps marshal more helpful facts to establish that its social workers in fact had received sufficiently specialized instruction to qualify for the “learned professional” exemption.

DSHS’ loss demonstrates the importance of scrutinizing your requirements for hiring persons sought to fall within the learned professional exemption. Particularly when the employee has only a bachelor’s degree, employers should delve deeper than the applicant’s college major to ensure that the coursework completed demonstrates that the employee has the requisite “prolonged course of specialized instruction,” even if they already have experience in the field. Requiring specific courses or narrowing the majors deemed acceptable may also assist in qualifying such persons for the learned professional exemption. 

Photo credit: tomazl  

In affirming the district court’s decision, the Fourth Circuit observed that the minimum wage and overtime provisions and the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA protect “employees,” and the term “employee” is not defined “in a vacuum,” but in relationship to an employer, i.e., “any individual employed by an employer.” The court noted that the FLSA's enforcement provision provides that “any employer” who violates the anti-retaliation provision is liable for legal and equitable remedies, and an action may be maintained against “any employer.” The court thus reasoned that an employee is given remedies for violation of the anti-retaliation provision as to his or her employer, and Dellinger could only state a claim if she could show that she was an employee and that SAIC was her employer. Because Dellinger was only an applicant whose application had been approved on a contingent basis and she never began work, the court concluded that she could not be an employee under the FLSA, which defines “employ” as “suffer or permit to work.”

Dellinger, the Secretary of Labor and the dissenting judge raised a number of arguments, all of which the court rejected. The court first rejected the argument that because the anti-retaliation provision prohibits “any person” from discharging or discriminating against “any employee” for filing or instituting an FLSA complaint or enforcement proceeding, Dellinger could sue “any person” for retaliation. While the court acknowledged that anti-retaliation provision does prohibit all “persons” from engaging in certain acts, including retaliation against employees, it noted that the enforcement provision does not authorize employees to sue “any person.” The court further noted that the use of the term “person” in the anti-retaliation provision is attributable to the fact that this section prohibits other acts not performed by employers, i.e., transporting hot goods, which is punishable by a criminal penalty, not a civil action.

The court also rejected the argument that the enforcement provision includes the remedies of “employment” and “reinstatement,” indicating that the FLSA protects prospective employees. The court reasoned that the remedy of “employment” could be afforded to a former employee hired back to a different position.

The court likewise rejected the argument that it should apply Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., which held that the definition of “employee” in Title VII included former employees, to extend the FLSA to applicants and prospective employees. The court considered Robinson to be inapposite because there was no dispute that the FLSA applied to former employees; rather, the issue here was whether the FLSA could extend to someone who had never worked for the employer.

The court also rejected the argument that Dellinger could sue SAIC because she was “any employee” insofar as she was her predecessor’s employee and SAIC was “any employer.” The court held that the purpose and text of the statute were consistent with the interpretation that it was referring only to an employer’s own employees. The court also declined to adopt the argument that Dellinger could be considered an “employee” of SAIC under the FLSA because, as the recipient of a contingent offer of employment, “there was no legitimate impediment between her and the imminent assumption of her job duties.”

While the court was sympathetic to Dellinger’s argument that prospective employers should not be able to discriminate against prospective employees for exercising their FLSA rights in the past, it held that it was not free to broaden the scope of the statute whose scope is clearly defined. In distinguishing other statutory frameworks, the court observed that the Secretary of Labor had not promulgated a regulation under the FLSA interpreting the term “employee” to include prospective employees and applicants.

We will continue to follow and report on legal developments on this important issue.

Photo credit: White Shade Photos

While it may sound simple to determine what it means to “change clothes,” the issue is not so simple, particularly when the clothing also protects the employee. Is an apron “clothing”? Is a hardhat? What about mesh gloves? Or arm guards? Steel-toed shoes? Where to draw the line? The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor has shifted its opinion three times. First, in 1997 it took the position that protective safety equipment worn over apparel was not “clothing.” Then, in 2002 it took a 180 degree turn, declaring that “changing clothes” applies to “the putting on and taking off of the protective safety equipment typically worn in the meat packing industry. . . .” In 2010 the Division completed the circle by concluding that changing clothes “does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job.”

In Salazar, unionized employees of a turkey processing plant in Colorado wore aprons, plastic sleeves, gloves, hard hats, earplugs, and some even wore mesh gloves, knife holders and arm guards. They sought compensation for their time “donning” or “doffing” these items each day. In affirming summary judgment for the employer, the Tenth Circuit declined to defer to the Wage & Hour Division’s most recent interpretation of the law, or any of its interpretations, because it had reversed course three times. Moreover, the court declared the agency’s current position is “not . . . particularly well-reasoned.”

Instead, the court took a common sense approach, finding that the ordinary meaning of “clothes” encompassed all of the items worn by these plant workers, and rejecting any distinction based on whether the items are “ordinary,” “street clothes,” or worn for safety or protective purposes, as not “particularly coherent or workable.” The court also discarded the approach taken by the Ninth Circuit—the one federal circuit court that has ruled to the contrary—that “generic” protective clothing, such as boots, frocks and hard hats, should be distinguished from “unique” protective clothing, such as mesh gloves or knife holders. The “unique” equipment worn by these turkey plant workers was not viewed as sufficiently cumbersome, heavy or complicated to fall outside of the definition of “clothes.”

With this latest ruling, we now have six federal appellate circuit courts finding that donning and doffing protective equipment is not compensable work time under these circumstances, and one going the other way. But the battle over what constitutes compensable time changing “clothes” no doubt will continue to rage, at least until more cases clearly delineate when employees must be paid for putting on or taking off their protective equipment.

Photo credit: Matt Collingwood

In affirming the lower court’s decision in favor of the employer, the Seventh Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s claims that her primary duty was not “the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer of the employer’s customers,” specifically noting that the Department of Labor’s regulations provide that an employee’s work may be directly related to a “customer’s business,” thus satisfying the primary duty requirement.

Indeed, the court noted that the plaintiff is “a picture perfect example of a worker for whom the Act’s overtime provision is not intended” because she performed duties such as serving as the intermediary between employees of advertising agencies and the software developers at MediaBank, training staff in the use of software, answering questions from customers, and showing the customer how to implement those answers in MediaBank software.

In summary, the plaintiff’s primary duty was to identify customers’ needs, translate them into specifications to be implemented by the developers, and assist the customers in implementing the solutions. The court found that these tasks constituted work exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions pursuant to the administrative exemption.

Photo credit: Chagin-art

The court began its analysis by first explaining that the FLSA controls because New York’s overtime statute is defined and applied in the same manner as the FLSA. The court then explained how the FLSA exempts from its overtime requirements any employee whose primary duty is making sales, among other criteria. The court noted that although the determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on all of the facts in a particular case, consideration is also given to certain “hallmark activities” such as whether the employee generates commissions for himself through his work; and the amount of work done away from the employer’s place of business.

In its analysis, the court first noted that the plaintiff’s case was almost identical to that of Chenensky v. New York Life Insurance Co., in which New York Life won summary judgment against a similarly situated plaintiff – although not a registered representative – whose primary duty was sales. The court declined to distinguish Gold’s case from Chenensky on this fact, declaring that “the fact that Gold’s employment is subject to certain regulatory requirements does not mean that compliance with the regulations is his primary duty under FLSA.” In other words, compliance with the FINRA regulations “[did] not convert a sales position into an advisory one.”

The court next highlighted the fact that the Gold had been paid solely on commission, received no compensation for pure financial advice in the absence of a sale, and consistently followed his employer’s six-step “Sales Cycle,” which involved mandated sales practices such as prospecting and closing the sale. In response, Gold cited case law in which courts found that a registered representative’s primary duty was something other than sales. The Gold court, however, distinguished these cases as inapplicable because, among other things, the FLSA’s “outside sales exemption” was not at issue in any of the cases. The court was similarly unpersuaded by Gold’s reliance on Department of Labor (DOL) opinion letters, one of which stated that a registered representative may qualify for the FLSA’s administrative exemption. Indeed, the court rejected the DOL letters as non-binding, and further held that because Gold’s duties did not involve managerial or promotional responsibilities, the FLSA’s administrative exemption did not apply.

Gold’s other claims, involving violations of New York’s minimum wage law and allegations of illegal deductions, either survived summary judgment or were allowed to move forward by the court. The case is significant in that it further solidifies insurance agents whose primary duty is sales as subject to the “outside salesman” exemption of the FLSA. The case also provides further support for application of the exemption even where an insurance agent has taken on arguably non-sales duties, such as due diligence, in order to comply with FINRA’s regulations.

Photo credit: Ed Bock Photography, Inc.

The DOL intends to explore updates to this application to make it or similar versions compatible with other smartphone platforms, such as the Android and BlackBerry.

The DOL also has made available a printable work hours calendar for workers who do not own smartphones. This downloadable calendar allows workers to track their rate of pay, start and stop times, and arrival and departure times, and includes information about workers’ wage and hour rights and how to file a wage violation complaint. The new app poses several concerns for employers. First, the app has the potential to create confusion where, for instance, an employer has a permissible time entry rounding system in place. Because the app does not provide for rounding, in such instances, there may be discrepancies between the amount of time recorded by an employee (and the amount of wages calculated by the app to be due) and the employer's time records. Second, the app could potentially be abused by workers who “clock in” on the app before their actual start time, clock out after their actual stop time, or fail to accurately record non-compensable breaks. Employers should be mindful of these potential problems if an employee attempts to present data from the app as “evidence” of improper wage payment. In fact, the app itself includes a disclaimer of which employers and employees should be aware:

Disclaimer: This App is designed as a reference tool. It does not include every possible situation encountered in the workplace. Some situations not addressed in this App may yield a different result in the calculation of total pay. These include, but are not limited to, situations where, for example, the employee is not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act or is exempt from the minimum wage and/or overtime pay requirements of the FLSA. Further, the conclusions reached by this App rely on the accuracy of the data provided by the user. Therefore, DOL make no express or implied guarantees as to the accuracy of this information.

Notwithstanding the potential issues raised by the app, employees should not be prohibited from using it at work, as its use may constitute protected activity under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state wage laws. However, employers may permissibly enforce existing information technology policies regarding the installation of the app on company-provided electronic devices.

Photo credit: Alex Slobodkin

B.                 New York Labor Law Section 195

1.                  What?

The most recent version of Labor Law Section 195 became effective April 9, 2011. Section 195 requires employers to distribute written notice to employees containing: (1) the employee’s regular and overtime rates of pay: (2) basis of payment (e.g., by the hour); (3) any allowances claimed; (4) the regular pay day; (5) the name of the employer; (6) any “doing business as” names used by the employer; (7) the physical address of the employer’s main office or principal place of business and a mailing address if different; (8) and the employer’s telephone number.

2.                  Who?

The notice required by Section 195 must be given to all exempt and non-exempt employees in New York. This includes managers and commissioned sales-people. 

3.                  When?

In addition to providing this notice at the time of hiring, Section 195 requires that employees be provided with the required notice on or before February first of each year. The notice must also be provided at least seven calendar days prior to the time of any change in information, unless such changes are reflected on the employee’s wage statement. Note that this “wage statement” exception is not included in the Hospitality Regulations.

4.                  How?

Like the notice required by the Hospitality Regulations, the Section 195 notice must be prepared in English and the employee’s primary language. However, if the Commissioner does not prepare a template in an employee’s primary language, an employer will comply with the law by providing an English-language notice and acknowledgment. Currently, the New York Department of Labor website provides templates for several common types of pay agreements in Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian and Spanish. 

See ASAP titled Lame Duck Reform: New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act and our blog post NY Department of Labor Releases Wage Theft Prevention Act Notice Templates for more information about Section 195 requirements and potential concerns with the forms provided by the Department of Labor.

The employer must obtain from each employee a signed and dated written acknowledgment in English and in the primary language of the employee. The acknowledgment must be preserved for six years. Such acknowledgment must include an affirmation by the employee that the employee accurately identified his or her primary language to the employer, and that the notice provided by the employer to such employee was in the language so identified.

C.                 Fair Labor Standard Acts Regulations

1.                  What?

The U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, recently published final amendments to regulations interpreting the FLSA. In order for an employer to take a tip credit, the regulations now require the employer to notify the employee: (1) of the amount of the cash wage that is paid by the employer (i.e., at least $2.13 under federal law); (2) of the amount of tips credited as wages; (3) that all tips received by the employee must be retained by the employee except for tips contributed to a valid tip pool limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips; (4) any required tip pool contribution amount; and (5) that the tip credit shall not apply to any employee who has not been informed of the requirements of the FLSA’s tip credit requirements.

See our ASAP titled Final Amended FLSA Regulations Make Significant Changes to Tip Credit Processes and Proposed Fluctuating Work Week Rules for more information about the recent amendments to the FLSA.

2.                  Who?

The notice requirements set forth in the FLSA regulations apply to all employers who take a tip credit against any of their employees’ wages. The notice must be given to all employees for whom a tip credit is taken.

3.                  When?

The new regulations, including this notice requirement, go into effect on May 5, 2011. 

4.                  How?

The regulations do not require that this notice be provided in writing. However, a written notice, signed by each employee, will provide more definitive proof of compliance in cases where the adequacy of the notice is challenged. 

While the regulations do not require that the notice be provided in an employee’s primary language, at least one recent court decision in the Southern District of New York implies that an English-only notice to employees who are not proficient in English is insufficient to satisfy the notice requirement of the FLSA. To avoid this risk, it is recommended that notice be provided to employees in their primary language, at least to those employees who can reasonably assert that they do not read or write English.

Whether verbal, posted, or distributed, this notice must be put into effect by May 5. 

Employers may find it easier to incorporate the federal and state law requirements into one notice that is distributed: (1) to current employees by May 5, 2011; (2) to all new employees at hire; (3) at the time of any change in required information; and (4) every year by February 1. Although this may result in employees receiving more overall notice than is required, it will significantly reduce the administrative burden of providing separate notices and reduce the risk of noncompliance.

Target moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employee qualified for the administrative exemption to the FLSA. In response, the employee argued, among other things, that her work was not directly related to assisting with Target’s general business operations and that she was heavily supervised and therefore did not exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to qualify for the exemption.

The court ultimately concluded that investigators “serviced Target’s retail operations by investigating and preventing theft and fraud” and that, although she was supervised and trained in her duties, the employee exercised professional judgment in selecting cases and developing strategies for carrying out subsequent investigations. Further, the court concluded that the employee exercised discretion and independent judgment with regard to matters of significance because her investigations had the potential to result in the recovery of substantial Target assets.

Based on these findings, the court held that there was no genuine issue as to whether the employee was an exempt administrative employee and entered summary judgment for Target. Having granted summary judgment, the court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify the case as a collective action.

Photo credit: Homegrown Media

Next, the court considered whether the prohibition of a class action voided the agreement. Notably, the Fourth Circuit in Adkins v. Labor Ready, Inc. had already addressed the issue and held that an arbitration agreement precluding class actions, and specifically a collective action under the FLSA, is not per se unlawful in light of the clear federal directive in support of arbitration. In this case, however, the court found that, in conjunction with the fee splitting provision, it would likely be that “no individual suits” would be brought except as a collective action under the FLSA.

Lastly, the court found that the provision truncating all statutes of limitations to one year would prevent Plaintiffs from vindicating their statutory rights, although the court recognized that some limitation periods may be shortened by agreement. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent in Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers, the court held that a strict one year limitation period for employment-related statutory claims is oppressive in an arbitration context.

This case suggests that an employer may include one of the above provisions in an arbitration agreement, but not all three. In addition, the court left open the question of whether parties could agree to a two-year statute of limitations on some claims. 

Photo credit: Logan Simmons
 

The final regulations reflect the DOL’s reaction to comments received during the 2008 proposed rules’ notice period, including comments submitted to the Department by Littler Mendelson. Citing comments it received, the DOL explained its decision not to include some language contained in amendments it originally proposed in 2008 and stated the final amendments update only those sections it determined “required change to reflect statutory enactment or outdated examples contained in the regulations.” The final rules also include changes to regulations concerning tipped employees that the DOL says are designed to bring its tip credit regulations in line with the Wage and Hour Division’s “long-standing and settled policies” concerning tipped employees.

The amendments to the DOL’s tip credit regulations are the regulations’ first changes in more than 44 years. The DOL’s original tip credit regulations were promulgated in 1967, one year after the 1966 FLSA amendment which enacted section 3(m) and created the tip credit provision. Although section 3(m) was amended in 1974 and again in 1996, the tip credit regulations remained unchanged. The DOL attempted to bridge the differences between the 1967 regulations and the amended Act through positions and policy expressed in opinion letters and its Field Operations Handbook. Courts, however, have not consistently adopted these DOL positions and policies, creating considerable uncertainty in this area.

Specifically, the final tip credit regulations clarify that:

• An employer is prohibited from using an employee’s tips for any reason other than as a tip credit to make up the difference between the minimum wage and required tip credit cash wage, or in furtherance of a legitimate tip pool.
• An employer must notify employees of any required tip pool contribution amount, but there is no maximum contribution percentage on valid mandatory tip pools.
• An employer must advise an employee in advance of its use of the tip credit pursuant to the provisions of section 3(m) of the FLSA (i.e., the amount of the cash wage that is to be paid to the tipped employee; the amount by which the wages of the tipped employee are increased on account of the tip credit; that all tips received by the employee must be retained by the employee except for tips contributed to a valid tip pool; and that the tip credit shall not apply to any employee who does not receive the notice).

Notably, the DOL rejected a position urged by many commenters that employers should be required to provide written notice of an employer’s intent to use the tip credit. Instead, the DOL adopted the position advocated by Littler Mendelson in its comment to the 2008 proposed rule that verbal notice was sufficient.

Other changes included in the final amendments to the regulations include:

• Incorporation of the language from the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996 into the regulations.
• Revising regulations concerning the Youth Opportunity Wage (a temporary sub-minimum wage paid to workers under age 20) to cite provisions of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996.
• Modifying regulations concerning agricultural workers on water storage/irrigation projects to be consistent with the 1997 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
• Revising regulations pertaining to volunteers at private non-profit food banks to include exemptions included in the Amy Somers Volunteers at Food Banks Act of 1998.
• Changing the regulatory definition of an “employee . . . in fire protection activities” to be consistent with a 1999 amendment to the FLSA that defines the term.
• Revising overtime regulations concerning calculations of the “regular rate” of pay to include provisions from the Worker Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 that exclude the value of stock options from the regular rate calculation.
• Addition of language to regulations pertaining to the exempt status of salesmen, partsmen, or mechanics of automobiles, trucks, or farm implements that reflects a 1974 amendment to section 13(b)(10) of the FLSA.
• Updating the regulations with “technical amendments” to reflect the increase in the amount of the minimum wage and other outdated threshold amounts, and eliminating outdated references in the regulations to former minimum wage rates.

The final amendments also reflect the DOL’s decision to abandon certain 2008 proposed changes. The DOL elected not to make proposed substantive changes to regulations regarding: compensatory time (continuing to allow public employees to use compensatory time on a date requested absent undue disruption to the employer); the fluctuating workweek (making only editorial revisions to these regulations); and meal credits (determining that further study concerning the impact of dietary or religious restrictions and whether employees had adequate time to eat was warranted before proposed changes were adopted). While the DOL amended language of its regulations pertaining to automobile salesmen, partsmen, or mechanics, it decided not to change its regulations concerning industry service advisors or writers, rejecting a proposed rule change that would have provided these employees with exempt status.

For more information, see Littler's ASAP, Final Amended FLSA Regulations Make Significant Changes to Tip Credit Processes and Proposed Fluctuating Work Week Rules.

In light of the Circuit split, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., and has now issued its opinion.

The Kasten case involved an unwritten, oral complaint to the employer, thus implicating both issues (1) and (2) above. Kevin Kasten worked at a Saint-Gobain manufacturing plant in Wisconsin. Kasten claimed that on several occasions he complained to his supervisors and a Human Resources generalist that the location of the time clocks was illegal because it prevented employees from being paid for time spent donning and doffing their required protective gear, and said that he might file a lawsuit. After frequently being warned about not recording his comings and goings on the time clock, Kasten was terminated. He sued Saint-Gobain, claiming that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his complaints in violation of the FLSA. The Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Kasten’s case, holding that unwritten, oral complaints are not protected activity under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that while internal complaints to an employer are protected under the FLSA, such complaints must be in writing because the term “filed” implies a writing. The court thus affirmed the dismissal of Kasten’s complaint.

In light of the circuit split surrounding the interpretation of the phrase “filed any complaint,” the Supreme Court granted review. The Court vacated the Seventh Circuit’s decision, holding that unwritten, oral complaints are protected. Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito and Sotomayor, with Kagan not taking part) held that while the meaning of the phrase “filed any complaint” was ambiguous, considering the purpose and context of the statute, it should be interpreted to include unwritten, oral complaints. The Court reasoned that excluding oral complaints would: (1) undermine the FLSA’s enforcement scheme as the anti-retaliation provision enables employees to report substandard conditions without fear of economic retaliation, (2) disadvantage those with difficulty making requests in writing such as the illiterate, less educated and/or overworked, (3) prevent government agencies from using hotlines, interviews and other oral methods of receiving complaints, and (4) discourage private employers from using informal workplace grievance procedures to secure compliance.

In order to ensure fair notice to the employer, the Court held that the phrase “filed any complaint” contemplates “some degree of formality, certainly to the point where the recipient has been given fair notice that a grievance has been lodged and does, or should, reasonably understand the matter as part of its business concerns.” The Court articulated the following standard: a complaint is “filed” when “a reasonable, objective person would have understood the employee to have put the employer on notice that the employee is asserting statutory rights under the Act.” The complaint “must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both the content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection.”

Surprisingly, the Court declined to comment on whether the FLSA protected only complaints filed with the government or whether complaints to an employer are also protected. The Court reasoned that, while the issue was addressed by the Seventh Circuit, it was not raised by the Company in its opposition to Kasten’s petition for certiorari and there was no need to resolve it in order to decide the oral/written issue. In his dissent, Justice Scalia (joined by Thomas) criticized the majority’s approach, noting that the issue was fairly encompassed within the Company’s opposition to the petition for certiorari, and would have been more logically addressed first. Justice Scalia would have affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the plain meaning of “filed any complaint” and its context make clear that the anti-retaliation provision contemplated an official grievance filed with a court or agency, not oral or written complaints to an employer. Thus, the circuit split on whether a complaint must be filed with the government to be protected remains. However, employers are cautioned to tread carefully and be mindful that a majority of the circuit courts have extended the FLSA’s protection to internal company complaints.

The defendant owner argued that the language, context, and legislative history of the FLSA compels a conclusion that an owner can be both an employer and employee for purposes of the tip pool provision. The court disagreed, stating that “it would be an anathema to the purpose behind the FLSA to simultaneously allow [an owner] to take tips from a collective tip pool that was set up to allow him to pay his employees at a rate substantially below the minimum wage” and that a contrary finding “would broaden the FLSA’s tip credit provisions to a point where they would become meaningless.”

The court also held that the defendant owner violated the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), the state equivalent of the FLSA, by improperly participating in the tip pool. However, the court ruled that the bartender employees who sued were not entitled to recover overtime wages under the MWHL because the law specifically exempts restaurants from its overtime provision. MD. CODE ANN. LAB. & EMPL. § 3-415.

This entry was written by Steven E. Kaplan.

Photo credit: chestnutphoto

The court’s reliance on Amex was surprising considering the Supreme Court’s recent order vacating and remanding the judgment in that case to the Second Circuit for reconsideration in light of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal Feeds Int’l Corp, 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010) (“Stolt-Nielsen”). In Stolt-Nielsen, the Supreme Court held that class arbitration is not permitted unless the parties agree to it. The district court determined, however, that Amex remained persuasive authority and analyzed Sutherland’s case using the factors articulated there.

Based on this analysis, the district court determined that the arbitration agreement at issue was unenforceable. Specifically, the court found that Sutherland’s maximum potential recovery of approximately $1,867.02, was “too meager to justify” her expenses, which were likely to exceed $200,000. The court reasoned that under these circumstances, Sutherland was unlikely to find an attorney willing to represent her. By contrast, if Sutherland was permitted to aggregate her claim with similarly situated individuals, “she would have no difficulty in obtaining legal representation.” Finally, the court asserted that enforcement of the class waiver provision would grant E&Y effective immunity from labor laws. Therefore, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration and permitted plaintiff’s class action to proceed.

This entry was written by Sarah Green.

Photo credit: Cristian Baitg

The trial court found that Arechiga’s supervisor had satisfied all of the requirements necessary to have an enforceable wage agreement under cases which pre-dated the passage of section 515(d). Those six factors are: (1) the employee was told the days he would work each week (six); (2) the number of hours he would work each day (eleven); (3) the guaranteed salary of a specific amount that the employee would be paid ($880 per week); (4) the basic hourly rate upon which his salary was based (true); (5) that his salary covered both his regular and overtime hours (true); and (6) the agreement was reached before the work was performed (also true). See Espinoza v. Classic Pizza, Inc., 114 Cal. App. 4th 968, 974 (2003); Ghory v. Al-Lahham, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1487, 1491 (1989); Hernandez v. Mendoza, 199 Cal. App. 3d 721, 725 (1988); Alcala v. Western Ag Enterprises, 182 Cal. App. 3d 546, 550–51 (1986). Arechiga’s straight-time rate of $11.14 and overtime rate of $16.71 totaled $880 for the 40 straight-time and 26 overtime hours in each of his workweeks.

The surprise was that the Court of Appeal found the agreement between Arechiga and his employer trumped California Labor Code section 515(d). That section provides: “For the purpose of computing the overtime rate of compensation required to be paid to a nonexempt full-time salaried employee, the employee's regular hourly rate shall be 1/40th of the employee's weekly salary.” Section 515(d) is commonly thought to incorporate the “Skyline Homes” rule. Skyline Homes v. Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 165 Cal. App. 3d 239 (1985). Under Skyline Homes, the overtime that is due an employee who was only paid a salary is determined for most employees by dividing the salary by forty hours. One and one half times the result of dividing a salary by 40 must be paid for each overtime hour of work.

The Court of Appeal’s finding that the wage agreement survived the passage of section 515(d) was not the subject of extensive analysis. The court concluded that overtime may not be waived, but that the basic hourly rate on which overtime is to be paid is still subject to agreement between the parties. The court set aside the portion of the Labor Commissioner’s Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual which condemned agreements such as Arechiga’s because the Manual had not been promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

While Arechiga v. Dolores Press may provide a measure of comfort for some employers, some of the unarticulated exceptions to the decision should be noted. A wage agreement may include some overtime, but, if an employee works more hours than are included in the agreement, additional overtime will be due. A wage agreement may appear generous or even beneficial to an employee if the full salary is provided even when the employee works fewer than the expected hours. However, a salary that guarantees a nonexempt employee overtime, even if the employee does not work the overtime, has to meet the requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for employers who are subject to the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. Under the FLSA, a salary that includes overtime, whether overtime was worked or not, is only valid if it meets all of the requirements of section 7(f) of the FLSA. Section 7(f) includes a requirement that an employee’s hours vary for reasons beyond the employer’s control and that the guarantee not include more than 60 hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(f). Furthermore, the United States Department of Labor and some courts would say that a fluctuating hours agreement (called a Belo agreement) is only valid if an employee’s hours vary both above and below 40 in a week. 29 C.F.R. § 778.406. Whether Arechiga made any claim under the FLSA, whether his employer was covered by the FLSA and whether all of the requirements of a BELO agreement were met are not addressed in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion. And, whether Arechiga ever worked more or fewer hours than those in his agreed schedule is not noted in the court’s opinion. The odds of an employee indefinitely working the same hours day in and day out are, however, limited. Once the employee works more hours, additional overtime must be paid. Once an employee works fewer hours, the requirements of section 207(f) must be met or the employee’s salary must be docked. Even if the requirements of section 207(f) are met, there is no specific accommodation of such plans under California’s Labor Code.

In sum, the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that Arechiga’s wage agreement was enforceable despite the seeming hurdle imposed by section 515(d) of the Labor Code is a surprise, albeit a welcome one. Any employer thinking of using such an agreement must, however, consider the more likely restrictions of federal law before concluding that all of the employer’s overtime concerns have been resolved.

This entry was written by R. Brian Dixon.

Photo credit: MBPhoto, Inc.

In reviewing the decertification motion, the court observed that the crux of the case was whether the MASMs were misclassified as exempt executive employees. Consequently, it was necessary for the court to review “the responsibilities and duties of a MASM” to determine whether that position qualified as exempt. The discovery conducted by Home Depot on this factor was critical to its successful decertification motion.

The court considered the MASMs’ deposition testimony, and concluded that “job responsibilities and duties varie[d] from MASM to MASM.” In reaching its conclusion, the court specifically relied upon the MASMs’ differing testimony about the following: (1) type of exempt work performed (directing and supervising employees, delegating work, planning work for employees, ordering inventory, and ensuring safety, security, and legal compliance within Home Depot stores); (2) authority over subordinate employees (hiring, promoting, evaluating, disciplining, and terminating employees); and (3) amount of time spent performing exempt work.

The court next identified three factors for consideration at the decertification stage: (1) disparate factual and employment settings; (2) defenses available to Home Depot; and, (3) fairness and procedural considerations. The court found all three factors for final collective action certification weighed in favor of decertification.

First, the court determined that there were substantial differences in the factual and employment settings of the MASMs, such that the court would be required to engage in numerous individualized determinations to discern whether each specific MASM qualified as an executive. The court also found that the plaintiffs could not rely on common proof evidence of Home Depot’s decision to classify all MASMs as exempt, Home Depot’s centralized corporate structure, the performance of non-exempt tasks by MASMs that overlapped with the responsibilities of non-exempt positions, or MASM compensation as compared to the nonexempt department supervisor’s compensation, because such factors did not establish the MASMs as similarly situated for FLSA purposes.

Second, the court recognized that Home Depot intended to present individualized evidence as to each MASM’s claims, and to raise contradictions between individual MASM’s written statements and deposition testimony. Third, the court noted its serious concerns about whether a collective action would be most efficient, and whether the court could “coherently manage” the collective action without prejudice to the parties, given Home Depot’s intention to explore individualized defenses. Accordingly, the court decertified the conditional collective action.

Finally, the court denied the MASMs’ request for subclasses for declaratory relief and training period claims. The court concluded that there was no authority supporting injunctive relief arising from Home Depot’s blanket policy of classifying all MASMs as exempt, without having first analyzed the appropriateness of the classification by testing the daily activities of the MASM position. In addition, the court noted that if the uniform classification of a position as exempt is not enough to establish similarly situated for FLSA purposes, as the court previously held in the decision, then it also does not support the creation of a subclass. The court also determined that the likelihood of dissimilarities during training would require an individualized case-by-case determination of whether each MASM was an executive during training.

This entry was written by Tracy Stott Pyles.

Photo credit: endopack

The court found that the visa, travel, and recruitment expenses primarily benefited the employer and that, as per U.S. Department of Labor regulations, the employer must reimburse the workers for those costs if the workers would otherwise effectively receive sub-minimum wage compensation. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 531.3(d), 531.35.

The court relied heavily on the fact that a 2009 Department of Labor Field Assistance Bulletin declared that employers must reimburse H-2B visa workers for the costs of transportation, obtaining a visa, and third-party recruiters whose services the employer retains. The Field Assistance Bulletin reasoned that the costs of transporting H-2B workers and of obtaining an H-2B visa primarily benefit the employer because the H-2B visa program provides “greater-than-normal” benefits to the employer, since such workers are available to an employer only if it attests that no comparable domestic workers are available. In concluding that the recruitment costs primarily benefited the employer, the district court emphasized that the employer had retained the third-party recruiter’s services.

The courts have been divided on this issue. The Eleventh Circuit has similarly ruled that travel and visa expenses must be reimbursed when a worker’s effective wage received would otherwise be below minimum wage. See Morante-Navarro v. T&Y Pine Straw, Inc., 350 F.3d 1163, 1166 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003). The Fifth Circuit, however, has held to the contrary. See Castellanos-Contreras v. Decatur Hotels, 622 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2010) (en banc).

This entry was written by Bruce Millman and Nicholas Ortiz.

Photo credit: oddrose
 

A vacation or sick leave buy-back program typically affords an employee the opportunity to cash-out his or her unused vacation or sick leave benefits. Such programs incentivize employees to work rather than take unnecessary vacation or sick leave (in order to retain the pay benefits). Employers also utilize these programs to save on the cost of overtime and per-diem workers. In Chavez, the City’s employees were subject to such a vacation and sick leave buy-back program. However, when the City would determine its employees’ overtime rate by calculating the employees’ regular rate to include “straight time” and add-on payments, it did not include vacation or sick leave buy-backs.

In its analysis, the Tenth Circuit first noted that pay for vacation and sick leave actually taken is not part of the FLSA’s regular rate calculation. Regarding the issue that arises when an employee works instead of taking his of her vacation or sick leave day, the court agreed with the Department of Labor’s position on the matter – vacation buy-back is not part of the regular rate, but sick leave buy-back is. According to the Department, vacation leave pay should not be included in the regular rate because it is not compensation for actual work, whereas sick leave pay should be included in the regular rate because it is analogous to an attendance bonus.

There is somewhat of a circuit split as to whether sick leave buy-backs should be included in the regular rate. For instance, the Sixth Circuit has held that sick leave buy-backs should not be included because “awards for nonuse of sick leave are similar to payments made when no work is performed due to illness...” Featsent v. City of Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900, 905 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, Chavez represents the Tenth Circuit’s split from the Sixth Circuit, and joining with the Eighth Circuit and Department of Labor, in holding that sick leave buy-backs should indeed be included in an employer’s calculation of the FLSA regular rate.

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

Image credit: scherbet

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted conditional certification on the plaintiffs’ FLSA claims, but then denied the plaintiffs Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) certification on their supplemental state-law claims based on the court’s finding that FLSA collective actions and state law class actions cannot be litigated together. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs could not satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement because the FLSA collective action was now certified and proceeding. According to the court, allowing both types of actions to proceed would mean that some of the individuals included as part of the state-law classes (those who did nothing) would be excluded from the FLSA collective action (for failing to opt-in). The court thought that such a result would undermine congressional intent as expressed in the FLSA.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit disagreed. First, the court found no categorical rule or case law against certifying a state-law class action in the same proceeding as an FLSA collective action. In addition, the court pointed to the familiar savings clause in the FLSA which states that no provision of the FLSA shall excuse non-compliance with any federal or state law establishing a higher minimum wage or a shorter maximum workweek. In other words, both FLSA collective actions and state-law class actions can peacefully co-exist in the same lawsuit.

On the issue of how to notify potential class members when both types of representative actions are certified (thus requiring opt-in and opt-out notices), the court acknowledged how the potential for confusion was a valid case-management consideration under Rule 23(b)(3)(D), but nonetheless failed to see how this notice problem was “any worse” than numerous other problems district courts face in managing class actions. According to the court:

It does not seem like too much to require potential participants to make two binary choices: (1) decide whether to opt in and participate in the federal action; (2) decide whether to opt out and not participate in the state-law claims.

Finally, the court noted that if an FLSA collective action were allowed to proceed separately in federal court while the state-law class action proceeded in state court, the situation would be much worse as the two courts would send uncoordinated notices to the putative classes. As a general rule, the court explained, it is preferable to have notice issued from a single court and in a unified proceeding.

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

The rules are a bit more complex for exempt employees, however, who must be paid on a salary basis. The general rule is that exempt employees must be paid their full salary for any week in which they perform any work, unless a deduction is specifically permitted under 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(b). Section 541.602(b)(1) allows deductions for full-day absences taken for “personal reasons.” But, is a snow day a “personal reason”?

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) addressed this issue in two Opinion Letters issued in 2005. DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2005-46 provides that deductions may be made from an exempt employee’s salary if the employer is open for business and the employee chooses not to report to work: "The Department of Labor considers an absence due to adverse weather conditions, such as when transportation difficulties experienced during a snow emergency cause an employee to choose not to report for work for the day even though the employer is open for business, an absence for personal reasons.” The DOL cautioned, however, that such “personal reasons” deductions “must be in full-day increments (not partial day deductions).”

Further, “[n]o deductions from salary can be made if the employer closes operations – this is considered an impermissible deduction "for absences occasioned by the employer or the operating requirements of the business."

Even when an employer closes operations, however, employees can be required to use accrued paid leave, such as paid vacation or a paid leave bank. DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2005-41 states that, since employers are not required under the FLSA to provide any paid leave to employees, “there is no prohibition on an employer giving vacation time and later requiring that such vacation time be taken on a specific day(s).” Therefore, an employer may direct exempt employees “to take vacation or debit their leave bank account” when the office or operations are closed due to inclement weather or other disasters, “whether for a full or partial day’s absence, provided the employees receive in payment an amount equal to their guaranteed salary.”

Cutting through the fog, the DOL’s guidance can be summarized in three simple rules:

1. Non-exempt employees need not be paid when they do not work due to inclement weather or a disaster under the FLSA.
2. If the company is open for business, an employer may make deductions, in full-day increments, from the salary of exempt employees who do not come to work due to inclement weather or a disasters.
3. If the company closes operations, the employer cannot make deductions from salary, but can require the employee to use accrued paid leave, either in partial-day or full-day increments.

This entry was written by Tammy McCutchen.

Photo credit: Randen Pederson

In contrast, in 2007, in Long Island Care at Home, Ltd, v. Evelyn Coke, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations exempted home care agencies from having to pay overtime to its employees who worked in clients' homes. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, rejected Bayada’s argument that it should be subject to the exemption standards under the FLSA, not Pennsylvania Minimum Wage law.

The decision means that, in Pennsylvania, home health agencies must now pay overtime to aides who work more than 40 hours in a workweek. The decision also has broader implications for any employer relying on the domestic services exemption. To come within the domestic services exemption: (1) the worker must be providing domestic services in or about a private home; and (2) the work must be performed in the home of the employer, not a third party. Employers in the state should carefully review their overtime exemptions and be sure that they are not erroneously relying on FLSA provisions where there are differing Pennsylvania requirements.

This entry was written by Thomas Benjamin Huggett.
 

Courtney Gordon, the Plaintiff-Appellant, was hired under this agreement, and resigned after only one year of service. On the day of Gordon’s resignation, the City informed her it was entitled to recover $6,400 (eighty percent of $8,000) in training costs. Accordingly, the City withheld income from Gordon’s final paycheck, but only in partial satisfaction of Gordon’s debt. As a result, Gordon received at least minimum wage income in her final paycheck, but was still accountable to the City for the remaining balance of her training costs.

Gordon then filed a class action lawsuit, seeking damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and various California state laws. At issue was whether the City’s paycheck deduction for training cost reimbursement constituted a “kickback” in violation of FLSA regulations (29 C.F.R. § 531.35: “The wage requirements of the Act will not be met where the employee ‘kicks-back’ directly or indirectly to the employer ... the whole or part of the wage delivered to the employee.”). The district court found that because Gordon’s paycheck still exceeded the minimum wage, despite the deduction, the City’s reimbursement demand did not violate the FLSA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Gordon is significant because it marks the latest Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold a training cost reimbursement agreement under the FLSA. Following the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning in Heder v. City of Two Rivers, Wisconsin, 295 F.3d 777, 781-82 (7th Cir. 2002), the Ninth Circuit called the City’s reimbursement agreement “a voluntarily accepted loan, not a kick-back.” Thus, the court explained, the cost of the training was a loan the City made to its officers, repayment of which was forgiven after five years of employment. And as long as the City paid its departing officers at least the statutory minimum wage, it could collect the training costs as any other ordinary creditor could, without violating the FLSA.

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

Kevin Kasten worked at a Saint-Gobain manufacturing plant in Wisconsin. He was issued three warnings for failing to properly clock in and out, and was suspended and then terminated in connection with a fourth incident. He claimed that at the time of his warnings and suspension, he told his supervisors and a Human Resources Generalist that the location of the time clocks was illegal because it prevented employees from being paid for time spent donning and doffing their required protective gear, and suggested to one supervisor that he might file a lawsuit. Following his termination, he sued Saint-Gobain, claiming that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his complaints in violation of the FLSA.

The Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the case, holding that unwritten oral complaints are not protected activity under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit first held that “the plain language of the statute indicates that internal, intra-company complaints are protected,” based on the use of the word “any” before “complaint,” joining the majority of Circuit Courts that have considered the issue. 570 F.3d at 838.¹ However, the court then reasoned that the use of the term “filed” implies a writing and held that unwritten oral internal complaints are not protected activity under the FLSA. 570 F.3d at 839. The court rejected the argument made by Kasten and the Secretary of Labor in an amicus brief that “filed” should be interpreted as “to submit.” Id. The court also reasoned that when Congress wants to protect retaliation more broadly, it knows how to do so, for example in Title VII, which prohibits retaliation because one has “opposed any practice.” 570 F.3d at 840. The court thus affirmed the dismissal of the Complaint.

The Supreme Court granted review to address the Circuit split on the interpretation of “filed any complaint.” At oral argument today the Court did not allow much in the way of argument, peppering the attorneys with hypotheticals, and hinting at several possible outcomes:

• Several Justices raised the possibility that the Court could hold that internal complaints are not protected at all, siding with the minority of Circuit Courts on that issue.
• If internal complaints can constitute protected activity, Justice Ginsburg credited the argument that every other time the word “file” is used in the FLSA, it refers to a writing and allowing oral internal complaints would deviate from the standard meaning of the term in the statute at issue. This would be a reason to affirm the Seventh Circuit’s decision, holding that only written internal complaints are protected.
• If internal oral complaints can constitute protected activity, the Justices asked the parties to identify a standard to qualify an oral complaint as protected activity. They used the example of an oral complaint to a supervisor at a cocktail party and seemed uncomfortable with the possibility that this could be protected activity. Justices Alito and Sotomayor probed whether “filed any complaint” may incorporate whatever complaint procedures the company has. Alternatively, Justice Breyer focused on the extent of the formality of the complaint, expressing a concern that a tap on the shoulder raising a complaint could go unnoticed by a supervisor. In response, an objective standard was proposed: “whether a reasonable person would have understood the employee to have submitted a complaint.”

In sum, it appears that if the Court allows internal oral complaints to qualify as protected activity, it is likely to impose a standard that ensures that employers have sufficient notice of the complaint. Stay tuned!

This entry was written by Martha Keon.
 

¹ But see Ball v. Memphis Bar-B-Q, Co., Inc., 28 F.3d 360, 364 (4th Cir. 2000) (the FLSA’s “statutory language clearly places limits on the range of retaliation proscribed by the act.”); Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 1993) (The plain language of this provision limits the cause of action to retaliation for filing formal complaints, instituting a proceeding, or testifying, but does not encompass complaints made to a supervisor”).

Polycarpe was a consolidated appeal of six Florida cases in which the district courts found that the FLSA did not apply because of insufficient interstate commerce. Each court’s finding was based on the fact that the employer had purchased its “goods” and “materials” intrastate. Some of the courts also held that the employees had not handled the necessary types of goods or materials. According to the Eleventh Circuit, however, each of these findings resulted from an “erroneous” interpretation of the FLSA. The case is notable for the court’s rejection of the “coming to rest” doctrine and interpretation of “materials” under the FLSA.

Rejecting the “Coming to Rest” Doctrine

The Fair Labor Standards Act  applies to two types of employers: 1) those with employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for commerce; and 2) those with employees “handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person.”¹ In Polycarpe, the lower courts further limited the FLSA’s scope by following the “coming to rest doctrine,” which states that the FLSA does not apply to those employees who handle goods or materials that , prior to the employer’s acquisition, have already come to rest within the state. The Eleventh Circuit, however, found that the “coming to rest doctrine” was inconsistent with the FLSA as currently amended and thus held that, on remand, the district court in each case must decide whether the goods or materials were “at any time” produced in or moved interstate.

Defining “Materials”

Because some of the lower courts’ decisions in Polycarpe were based on interpretation of and the interplay between “goods” and “materials,” the court discussed each term at length and provided guidance on how lower courts should distinguish between the two. Of particular note is the court’s discussion of “materials,” given that the FLSA contains no definition of the term. Consulting the FLSA’s legislative history, Department of Labor regulations, and even Webster’s Dictionary, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that “materials” means “tools or other articles necessary for doing or making something.” Additionally, the court held that determining whether an item may be included in the term “materials” requires a 2-part test: “1) whether, in the context of its use, the item fits within the ordinary definition of ‘materials’ under the FLSA; and 2) whether the item is being used commercially in the employer’s business.” Discussing the first part of its test, the court gave the example of china plates which, if used by a caterer at a client’s banquet, would count as “materials,” but if simply sold as stand-alone items, would count as “goods.” As for the second part of the test, the court explained that the item must have a “significant connection” to the employer’s business. Thus, china plates would have a significant connection to a caterer’s business, but the same plates would not count as “materials” if used by an accounting firm as objects of decoration.

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

¹Both of these scenarios assume a $500,000 annual gross volume of sales. 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).

In Spoerle, the employees were required to wear safety gear, such as steel-toed boots and hard hats, as well as a smock and hair nets. Each worker spent a few minutes at the beginning and end of the day donning and doffing these items. The employer and the employees’ union had agreed that this time was not compensable. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff’s argument that protective gear was not “clothing” under Section 203(o). The Court of Appeals held, however, that because Wisconsin’s own wage-and-hour legislation lacked any equivalent to Section 203(o), the donning and doffing time counted as work time (and overtime) under state law.

The Court of Appeals relied upon the “saving clause” of the FLSA, which provides that no provision of the Act “shall excuse noncompliance” with any state law that establishes a higher minimum wage or a lower overtime threshold. Nothing in Section 203(o) limited the ability of states to impose broader requirements.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that state law interfered in the parties’ collective bargaining. According to the court, the state statute did not require an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Rather, the statute required that the agreement be ignored to the extent it attempted to avoid the obligations imposed by state wage and hour law. Management and labor acting jointly through a CBA could not override state substantive law.

This entry was written by Andrew Voss.

Background

Plaintiffs are former pharmaceutical sales representatives (“PSRs”) for Alpharma, Inc., a manufacturer of pain medication that is now owned by King Pharmaceuticals. On July 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging they are due unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the FLSA. Thereafter, on March 24, 2009, the court granted Alpharma, Inc.’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of Smith v. Johnson & Johnson in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Following the Third Circuit’s decision in Smith, Alpharma filed a motion for summary judgment before the instant court.

Analysis

The court held that the former PSRs qualify for the administrative exemption and analyzed the three-prong test that the Secretary of Labor sets forth in the administrative regulations. Under the test, an administrative employee must (1) make no less than $455 per week; (2) perform “non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer;” and (3) exercise sufficient “discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.”

With the weekly salary requirement conceded by the parties, the court held that the second prong of the administrative exemption test was met, reasoning that the PSRs were involved in “marketing” and “promoting sales.” The court recognized that federal statutes and regulations prohibit the sale of Alpharma’s prescription medication directly to the public. The PSRs “called on doctors and pharmacies to encourage them to prescribe or stock Alpharma’s products over the products of its competitors.”

Concerning the third prong, the court further examined federal regulations defining the exercise of discretion and independent judgment as involving “the comparison and evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered.”

Alpharma relied heavily on the Third Circuit’s holding in Smith that “a pharmaceutical sales representative was not entitled to overtime pay because she qualified for the administrative exemption under the FLSA.” The district court noted that the plaintiff in Smith “described herself as ‘the manager of her own business who could run her own territory as she saw fit.’”

The court stated that “the facts in Smith are startlingly similar to the case at bar.” The court identified the following similarities: the employer gave Smith a list of target doctors including “high-priority” doctors, set a minimum number of doctors to visit per-day, permitted Smith to determine the order of doctor visits each day, provided Smith with a prepared “message,” allowed Smith “some discretion when deciding how to approach the conversation,” provided Smith with visual aids and did not allow her to use other aids.

The PSRs here worked alone, developed business plans, decided their “routing” (i.e., when and where to travel), and determined the doctors to meet with each day “in order to effectuate the most business.” The court stated that the PSRs also had discretion to decide “how to approach the physician.”

On the other hand, the plaintiffs characterized Alpharma’s PSR supervisors as “micro managers,” and argued that the PSR in Smith was more of a “freelancer.” The plaintiffs also urged the court to examine the full list of factors set forth in the regulations for determining “whether or not an employee exercises the requisite discretion and judgment to fit within the exemption.”

The court reasoned that the plaintiffs satisfied the same two factors as the plaintiff in Smith. First, the court noted that the PSRs’ work “affects business operations to a substantial degree.” Second, the court stated that the PSRs “are ‘involved in planning long-or short-term business objectives’ related to the marketing of their products within their territories.”

In addition to satisfaction of these two factors, the court stated that its conclusions were “buttressed by the plaintiffs’ duties to write reports and business plans to determine where their business was coming from, to detect trends in the sales of the drug, and to generate ideas on how to grow the business.”

The plaintiffs submitted supplemental submissions to direct the court’s attention to other PSR misclassification cases: Jirak v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation. The court found it unnecessary to discuss these cases in light of the Third Circuit’s decision in Smith and in a subsequent nonprecedential opinion.

This entry was written by Michael Harvey.

When the case was considered by the district court, it dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, finding the Reps were exempt employees under both the “outside sales” and “administrative” exemptions set forth in the FLSA. Analyzing first the outside sales exemption, the district court concluded that even though the Reps “may not ‘sell’” in a “technical[ ]” sense, they do “make sales in the sense that sales are made in the pharmaceutical industry” and therefore they meet the “spirit and the letter” of the outside sales exemption. The district court also found that the Reps meet the administrative exemption, because they “exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance” when they meet with physicians, provide them with information about the company’s products, and attempt to get commitments to prescribe the products. The Second Circuit reversed and held that the Reps do not meet either exemption.

Outside Sales Exemption

The Second Circuit concluded that the Novartis Reps do not meet the requirements of the outside sales exemption because they do not “make sales.” The court relied heavily on the Secretary of Labor’s amicus curiae position that a “sale” requires an exchange of consideration between buyer and seller and that, at best, Reps simply seek a positive affirmation from physicians that they will prescribe Novartis’s products in the future.

Although Novartis argued that the preamble to the regulations accompanying the FLSA provides that “commitments to buy” may constitute “making sales” under the exemption, the court rejected the argument as applied to this case. It held that “[t]he type of ‘commitment’ the Reps seek and sometimes receive from physicians is not a commitment ‘to buy’ and is not even a binding commitment to prescribe.”

Administrative Exemption

The plaintiffs also challenged the application of the administrative exemption based on the degree of discretion the Novartis Reps have in the performance of their duties. The Second Circuit again deferred to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the regulations and her position regarding their application to the facts of the case. It noted that, despite the importance of the Reps’ efforts to promote the company’s products, there was “no evidence in the record that the Reps have any authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement Novartis’s management policies or its operating practices, or that they are involved in planning Novartis’s long-term or short-term business objectives, or that they carry out major assignments in conducting the operations of Novartis’s business, or that they have any authority to commit Novartis in matters that have significant financial impact.” Instead, the Second Circuit accepted the plaintiffs’ claim that they do “low-level discretionless marketing work, strictly controlled by Novartis” and concluded that they did not exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to satisfy the administrative exemption. 

This entry was written by Lori Alexander, Michael Harvey, and Theresa Waugh.

¹ On the same day the In re Novartis ruling was issued (July 6, 2010), the Second Circuit also issued a summary order in Kuzinski v. Schering Corp., 2d Cir. No. 09-1945-cv, affirming the district court’s denial of summary judgment in a similar case.

The letter also examines whether clothes changing covered by Section 203(o) may be a principal work activity such that any subsequent activities such as walking and waiting become compensable working time. In 2007, the Administrator concluded that clothes changing activities encompassed by Section 3(o) were not principal work activities and, therefore, walking and waiting that occurred immediately thereafter would not be compensable. The new interpretation rejects the 2007 letter and concludes clothes changing covered by section 203(o) may be a principal work activity.

To learn more about this development and its implications for employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, Department of Labor Issues Interpretation Narrowing Clothes-Changing Exclusion and Expanding Scope of Compensable Workday, by Laurent R.G. Badoux and Michael J. Lehet. 

This entry was written by Lee Schreter.

Photo credit: tomazl

Additionally, a new penalty provision was added for violations causing death or serious injury to an employee under the age of 18. Accordingly, violators can be subject to a maximum civil penalty of:

• $50,000 for each violation; or
• $100,000 for repeated or willful violations.

The regulations define “serious injury” as:

• permanent loss or substantial impairment of one of the senses (sight, hearing, taste, smell, tactile sensation);
• permanent paralysis or substantial impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, including the loss of all or part of an arm, leg, foot, hand, or other body part; or
• permanent paralysis of substantial impairment that causes loss of movement or mobility of an arm, leg, foot, hand or other body part.

The new regulations and penalties will take effect July 19, 2010.

This entry was written by Stacey James.

The plaintiffs in Combs worked as seasonal agricultural workers for Munoz & Sons (Munoz). Munoz grew and harvested strawberries in the Santa Maria Valley and employed the plaintiffs during the 2000 strawberry season. Munoz, with the assistance of its foremen, hired and fired its employees, trained them, supervised them, “told them when and where to report to work, when to start, stop and take breaks, provided their tools and equipment, set their wages, paid them, handled their payroll and taxes, and purchased workers’ compensation insurance.”

Apio, Inc. (Apio) and Combs Distribution Co. (Combs) were produce merchants who contracted with Munoz for the purchase of fresh strawberries. Corky and Larry Combs were principals in Combs and Juan Ruiz was Combs’ field representative who inspected the quality of the available strawberries and explained the manner in which the strawberries were packed. Munoz filed and was later granted a discharge in bankruptcy. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid minimum wages under Labor Code section 1194 against Apio, Combs, its principals and Ruiz.

To do so, plaintiffs argued that the Industrial Welfare Commission's (IWC) Wage Order No. 14-2001 (Wage Order 14) defined each of the defendants (Munoz, Combs, Apio) as employers for purposes of section 1194. The lower courts rejected this argument and the California Supreme Court affirmed.

Before the California Supreme Court, the plaintiffs claimed that pursuant to the IWC, each of the remaining entity defendants (Combs and Apio) “suffer[ed], or permit[ted plaintiffs] to work” because they knew Munoz would need to hire workers to fulfill its contracts with Apio and Combs for their respective benefit. The plaintiffs further argued that the defendants exercised control over the plaintiffs’ wages, hours and/or working conditions as defined by Wage Order 14. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the defendants controlled payment of Munoz's share of sales proceeds pursuant to their purchase agreements with Munoz and, therefore, a portion of the income from which Munoz paid his employees.

The defendants argued that Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal. 4th 1075 (2005) controlled the issue. In Reynolds, the court held that directors and officers of a corporation are not liable for the corporation’s employees’ unpaid overtime compensation. Alternatively, the defendants requested that the court construe the wage order as if it incorporated the “economic reality” definition developed under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

After a lengthy analysis of the legislative history and intent behind the creation of the IWC, the court ruled that (1) the scope of the IWC's delegated authority extends to wages, hours and working conditions, (2) the IWC's definition of “employer” could include situations in which multiple entities control different aspects of the employment relationship, and (3) the definition of “employer” was intended to distinguish state wage law from federal law.

The court rejected each of the plaintiffs’ arguments and found that for a business proprietor (such as Apio or Combs) to “suffer or permit” work under the IWC and section 1194, the proprietor must (1) know that persons are working within the “business without being formally hired or while being paid less than the minimum wage . . . [and (2)] fail[] to prevent it, (3) while having the power to do so.”

The court dismissed the theory that a business relationship was sufficient to transform the downstream beneficiary (the purchaser in this case) into an employer under section 1194. The court concluded that the business entity must have the power to prevent the work from occurring and the “specific sense of exercising control over how services are performed” to be considered an employer under section 1194. Accordingly, the court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that defendants Apio, Combs and Ruiz did not employ or have an employment relationship with the plaintiffs.

This entry was written by Heather Davis and Lauren Howard.

As a general rule, the DOL has taken the position that interns providing services to for-profit employers are employees who are covered by the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA. However, the DOL has recognized that there are situations where individuals who participate in certain “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs may do so without being compensated for their work. According to the new Fact Sheet, for an individual to be considered an unpaid “intern,” the following six criteria must be met:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, must be similar to training which would be given in an educational environment. According to the Fact Sheet, “the more an internship program is structured around a classroom or academic experience as opposed to the employer’s actual operations, the more likely the internship will be viewed as an extension of the individual’s educational experience.”
2. The internship experience must be for the benefit of the intern.
3. The intern must not displace regular employees. Rather, the intern must work under close supervision of existing staff.
4. The employer that provides the training must not derive any immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship. In this regard, the internship should not be used as a “trial period” to determine whether the individual is suitable for continued employment.
6. The employer and the intern must understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

As the DOL notes in the Fact Sheet, the intern exclusion is “quite narrow” given that most individuals performing work for an employer are deemed to be employed under the FLSA’s extremely broad definition of “employ.” As a result, for-profit employers who intend to utilize interns without paying them minimum wage or overtime must carefully evaluate the realities of the situation to determine whether a bona fide intern relationship exists. 

This entry was written by Jennifer L. Mora.

Second, the General Assembly provided the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (“DLLR”) with the authority to investigate and adjudicate wage claims of up to $3,000. Upon receipt of a complaint from an employee, DLLR will send a copy to the employer and require a written response within 15 days. Following an investigation, DLLR may issue an order to pay the wages plus interest or dismiss the claim. Significantly, DLLR is not authorized to order attorney’s fees or treble damages, which would otherwise be available to an employee in court.

Within 30 days after receipt of an order to pay wages, an employer may request a de novo administrative hearing. If an employer is unsuccessful at an administrative hearing, it may appeal the decision to a circuit court. However, the court may overturn the administrative decision only if it “is unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in light of the entire record as submitted; or is arbitrary or capricious.”

These changes become effective on October 1, 2010.

This entry was written by Steven Kaplan.

Providing context for its decision, the court noted that Congress intended to exclude certain pre- and post-shift activities from work time when it enacted the Portal-to-Portal Act to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under that amendment, as further stated in a persuasive 2006 DOL memorandum, changing clothes under usual circumstances is not compensable. In this case, the City had a policy of allowing officers to dress wherever they preferred, including at home, but required motorcycle officers to dress at home. The Court agreed that to the extent officers elected to dress at work, their decision was strictly a matter of employee convenience, and, as a result, their decision to change clothes at work did not render that time compensable.

The court recognized that previous decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit allowed compensation for donning and doffing, but in all those cases, changing clothes had to be performed on the employer's premises because of the nature of the work, a policy of the employer, or applicable law. Those cases provided the following three-part test to assess whether pre- and post-shift activities are compensable: (1) does the activity constitute "work"? (2) is the activity an "integral and indispensable duty" of the job?, and (3) is the activity so insignificant in scope and duration as to be excluded from compensability as de minimis?

The court expressed doubt whether the act of changing in and out of a uniform and gear constituted "work," but proceeded to the second prong of the test where the officers' argument "fatally falter[ed]." To be "integral and indispensable, a pre- or post-shift activity must be "necessary to the principal work performed and done for the benefit of the employer." Both the majority and the dissent deemed that the act of donning and doffing a uniform was not integral to the job and, therefore, was not compensable. The majority noted that, although there was no dispute that the uniform and gear was required, the process of donning and doffing was not required to occur at work, and was equally effective whether performed at home or work. There was no mutual obligation fulfilled by donning and doffing at work, and the ultimate decision was a matter of convenience to the employee, not the employer. The dissent also recognized that the uniform may connote authority but does "not assist the officers in making arrests, interviewing witnesses or writing reports," and, therefore, is not integral.

The majority considered the gear used by officers in the same context as (and as part of) their uniform and found it to be indispensable but not integral to the principal duty of law enforcement. The dissent reasoned that the police gear assisted officers in the performance of their principal duty, and, consequently, was both indispensable and integral. The dissent further noted that the time spent donning and doffing gear was most likely a matter of only "seconds, or a few minutes," which would make that time non-compensable as de minimis. The dissent concluded that the case should be remanded because the record does not contain evidence of the amount of time actually required for donning and doffing gear.

This decision is significant for private employers as well. To the extent any employer requires its employees to wear a uniform (or gear), this decision provides a framework for determining whether an employee is entitled to compensation. Although certain factors or set of facts may lead to variations, employers requiring its employees to don and doff uniform and gear at work are likely required to compensate employees for that time—provided it is not de minimis—but employees are generally not entitled to compensation if they have the right to change at home at the beginning and end of their workday.
 

This entry was written by Laurent Badoux.

Outside Sales

Noting that the FLSA regulations define “an ‘outside salesperson’ as an employee (1) whose ‘primary duty’ consists of ‘making sales’ or ‘obtaining orders or contracts for
services’ and (2) who is ‘customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such primary duty,’” and “primary duty” to be the “principal, main, major, or most important duty that the employee performs,” the Seventh Circuit found that the undisputed facts showed that the plaintiff’s primary duty was outside sales.

In reaching this decision, the Seventh Circuit noted that the plaintiff spent four to eight hours a day outside of the office making in-person sales calls. She came into the office on only about half of her workdays and even when in the office, the plaintiff spent much of her time on work relating to sales. The plaintiff maintained a database of customers, which formed the basis for her collections and commission payments. The Seventh Circuit found that this work related directly to her outside sales work and was therefore itself exempt work. Similarly, the plaintiff spent about ten hours a week developing marketing plans and performing promotional work, and an additional five to six hours promoting the company outside of the office, including at chamber of commerce meetings. Aside from the plaintiff, only the company’s president made direct sales; therefore, the Seventh Circuit found that most of the “fruits” of the plaintiff’s promotional efforts were realized in her own sales. As a result, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the additional hours the plaintiff spent performing this promotional work also counted as exempt outside sales work.

“Combination exemption”

The Seventh Circuit also agreed with the district court that even if the plaintiff did not qualify for the outside sales exemption, she qualified as exempt under the FLSA’s “combination exemption.” Under this exemption, employees “who perform a combination of exempt duties” set forth in the regulations for the outside sales and administrative exemptions may be exempt from the FLSA. The Seventh Circuit found that to the extent the plaintiff’s work was not related to outside sales, it was primarily exempt administrative work. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit viewed the plaintiff’s work developing advertising and marketing plans, managing customer complaints, administering the customer database, and dealing with issues during the president’s absence that the president would have dealt with if he was in the office (e.g., approving orders of parts for broken machinery), as work directly related to the management and general operations of the company.

Rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the president (her sole supervisor) micromanaged her work, the Seventh Circuit found persuasive that the plaintiff negotiated with customers over price and service credits, placed advertisements, created marketing campaigns, collected from accounts, and set her own schedule.

This entry was written by Theresa Waugh.

In Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2010-1, the DOL focused on the “production versus administrative” dichotomy in determining that mortgage loan officers are production workers whose primary duty is making sales, as opposed to administrative workers whose work is directly related to the management or general business operations of their employer or their employer’s customers. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200.

The DOL relied on the following factors in reaching its conclusion:

• The primary job duties of mortgage loan officers – including collecting financial information from customers, entering it into the computer program to determine what particular loan products might be available to that customer, and explaining the terms of the available options and the pros and cons of each option, so that a sale can be made – constitute the production work of an employer engaged in selling or brokering mortgage loan products;
• Mortgage loan officers are paid primarily by commissions;
• Employers often train their mortgage loan officers in sales techniques and evaluate their performance on the basis of their sales volume;
• Many employers defend against FLSA lawsuits brought by mortgage loan officers by arguing that they are exempt as outside sales employees, thus conceding that their primary duty is sales; and
• Courts have repeatedly held that mortgage loan officers who work inside their employer’s place of business have a primary duty of sales.

The Wage and Hour Division announced that its new Administrator Interpretations “will set forth a general interpretation of the law and regulations, applicable across-the-board to all those affected by the provision in issue. Guidance in this form will be useful in clarifying the law as it relates to an entire industry, a category of employees, or to all employees.” Although the DOL will continue to respond to requests for opinion letters, such responses will be limited to providing references to relevant statutes, regulations, interpretations and cases and will no longer include an analysis of the specific facts presented.

This entry was written by Stephanie L. Hankin.

The employees principally argued that Section 203(o) was inapplicable because the union did not “affirmatively” bargain away potential compensable donning and doffing time during negotiations and, therefore, the company could not have a “custom or practice under a bona fide collective bargaining agreement.” In particular, the employees relied on Kassa v. Kerry, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Minn. 2007), where the court “identified three elements as essential to determine the existence of a ‘custom or practice‘ under § 203 (o): time, knowledge, and acquiescence.” In Kassa, the district court found that the employer’s custom and practice did not meet these requirements because the record only established non-payment by the company for six years. In contrast, in Allen, the company had not compensated its employees for changing time since 1965. Moreover, the court noted that the employees knew that they were not being compensated for that time, and whether they were aware of their legal rights under the FLSA was not a relevant consideration. Consequently, the court affirmed summary judgment.

The court also rejected the employees’ contention that Section 203(o) should be characterized as an “exemption” under the FLSA, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the employer to establish the exemption as an affirmative defense.. The court reasoned that Section 203 “is a list of definitions and subsection (o) addresses how to define and calculate ‘hours worked,’ in contrast to Section 213, which is titled ‘Exemptions.’”

The Fifth Circuit is now in accord with the Third and Eleventh Circuits, which also have concluded that it is not necessary to raise the issue of compensation for donning and doffing time in negotiations. Anderson v. Cagle's, Inc., 488 F.3d 945, 958-59 (11th Cir. 2007); Turner v. City of Philadelphia, 262 F.3d 222, 226 (3rd Cir. 2001). Notably, only the Ninth Circuit has characterized Section 203(o) as an exemption. See Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894, 905 (9th Cir. 2003), aff’d on other grounds, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005); cf. Anderson, 488 F.3d at 957.

This entry was written by Steven Kaplan.

The employees were required to wear steel-toe shoes, a smock, plastic apron, safety glasses, ear plugs, bump cap, hair net, rubber gloves and sleeves, and arm shields. In addition to donning and doffing these items at the beginning and end of each work day, employees were also required to sanitize their gear by dipping their gloves into a tank, splashing the liquid solutions onto their aprons, and stepping through a footbath before and after working and during extended breaks. The company had a long standing practice of paying its employees for time on the production line only.

In 2002, the union proposed that its members be paid for twelve minutes of donning and doffing time per day. The company rejected the union’s offer and continued to pay its employees for production line work only. In 2007, three production employees filed a putative collective action in which they were joined by approximately 250 current and former production workers.

The employees argued that Section 203(o) was inapplicable because the items were not “clothes” and the act of donning and doffing them was not “changing.” For example, they argued that “clothes” encompassed “regular undergarments and outerwear,” i.e., street clothes, and excluded protective safety items in the workplace. The court found the employees’ “cramped” and “narrow” definition of “clothes” and “changing” unpersuasive, reasoning that the purpose behind Section 203(a) was to leave such donning and doffing activities to the collective-bargaining process.

The court noted that Congress recognized that employers and unions are in a better position than either courts or agencies to “thresh out” how much compensable time should be allocated for “changing clothes.” Additionally, the court observed that collective bargaining allows employers and unions to reach agreements that leave both sides more satisfied than a government or court-imposed solution and that unions may be willing to trade higher wages, enhanced benefits, or improved working conditions in exchange for compensation for changing clothes. Notably, in stark contrast to this decision, the Ninth Circuit reached a different result in Alvarez v. IBP, Inc., 339 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2003), aff’d on other grounds, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), holding that protective items worn in the beef and pork industries are not “clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o).

This entry was written by Steven Kaplan.

In Collins, drivers working for a wholesale importer and distributor of wine picked up the wine from its employer’s warehouse in Chicago and delivered the wine to retail stores in Chicago and other areas of Illinois. Although the employees never made deliveries outside of Illinois, their employer controlled the wine from the time its independent contractors picked up the wine from the state or country of origin until the time its drivers (the plaintiffs) ultimately delivered the wine to a retail outlet in Illinois. The wine did not undergo any alteration on its trip from the vineyard to a retail store, nor was it subject to any processing, deliberate aging, adding of preservatives, or re-labeling. Rather, “[w]hen the wine arrives at the warehouse, it is taken off the shrink-wrapped pallets on which it is delivered and shelved in the warehouse, period.”

In concluding that the drivers were engaged in interstate commerce bringing them within the Motor Carrier Act exemption from overtime, the Seventh Circuit found that the drivers’ delivery of wine exclusively within Illinois amounted to the last segment of an uninterrupted single interstate shipment originating from the locations where the wine had been produced. According to the Seventh Circuit:

“It seems to us that when a shipper transports his product across state lines for sale by him to customers in the destination state, and the product undergoes no alteration during its journey to the shipper’s customer, and interruptions in the journey that occur in the destination state are no more than the normal stops or stages that are common in interstate sales, such as temporary warehousing, the entire journey should be regarded as having taken place in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act’s exemption from the [FLSA]."

As a result, the court affirmed the district court's holding that the drivers were engaged in interstate commerce and, therefore, exempt from overtime under the FLSA.

While at first blush the decision in Collins appears to be favorable to employers, the Seventh Circuit’s conclusion that the drivers were engaged in interstate commerce was limited to the facts before it. Accordingly, employers with drivers who deliver goods within a single state must evaluate the overall process for delivery of goods from start to finish before concluding that the Motor Carrier Act exemption applies.

This entry was written by Jennifer L. Mora.

Photo credit: MobiusDaXter
 

In addition, the proposed regulations would “modernize” certain recordkeeping requirements by allowing for “automated and electronic recordkeeping systems and methods to take the place of mandatory paper records that are currently required in some instances for employees” who work from home.

The DOL anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking in August of 2010.

This entry was written by Christopher Kaczmarek.

Under the FLSA, compensation for overtime need not be provided to “any employee...in the capacity as an outside salesperson.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). To qualify as an outside salesperson, (1) the employee’s “primary duty” must be “making sales” or “obtaining orders or contracts,” and (2) he or she must customarily and regularly be engaged away from the employer’s place of business in performing such duty. 29 C.F.R § 541.500(a). Both parties agreed that PSRs met the second requirement, so the only disputed issue was whether their primary duty was making sales.

The FLSA defines sales as “any sale, exchange, contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(k). Moreover, sales include “the transfer of title to tangible property, and in certain cases, of tangible and valuable evidences of intangible property.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.501(b). Whether an employee makes sales requires an objective analysis, and according to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) making sales includes “obtain[ing] a commitment to buy from the customer,” which resulted in the salesperson being “credited with the sale.” U.S. Department of Labor, Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees, 69 Fed. Reg. 22122, 22162 (Apr. 23, 2004). According to the court, under the DOL regulations, there is no requirement that commitments be binding. All that is required is that a sale be made “in some sense.”

In Christopher, the PSRs argued that they did not make sales because they did not consummate transactions or take orders. Instead, they claimed they merely promoted products. Moreover, PSRs contended their activities did not constitute sales because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expressly prohibited pharmaceutical companies from selling directly to physicians or patients. According to the PSRs, sales only occurred between the pharmaceutical company and wholesalers.

The court noted that opinions differed among the federal courts whether PSRs made sales. A federal court in Connecticut concluded that PSRs did not qualify for the exemption because they could not sell, and physicians could not buy, products. Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 585 F. Supp. 2d 254, 268 (D. Conn. 2008). However, a court in New York held that PSRs were exempt because they were credited with sales when physicians wrote prescriptions. In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litigation, 593 F. Supp. 2d 637, 648 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit). To determine whether PSRs qualified as outside salespeople, the court in Christopher looked to the rationale behind the outside sales exemption and also examined the position in the context of the pharmaceutical industry.

According to the court, the characteristics of PSRs justified exemption. PSRs were compensated well above the federal minimum wage (up to $100,000 per year), received fringe benefits like incentive bonuses in lieu of overtime, were unsupervised, and had better opportunities for advancement than non-exempt employees. Additionally, the kind of work they performed was “difficult to standardize to any time frame and could not be easily spread to other workers after 40 hours in a week, making compliance with overtime provisions difficult.” (quoting U.S. Department of Labor, 69 Fed. Reg. at 22124.)

The court observed that although the FLSA was enacted prior to the development of the pharmaceutical sales industry, it was intentionally broad to “address a multiplicity of industries found in the national economy and accordingly provide flexibility in the definition of a ‘sale.’” Moreover, the industry’s unique nature, i.e., the prohibition of direct sales, shifted the focus of sales efforts from the consumer to the physician, thereby making “[a] PSR’s ultimate goal [the] close [of] an encounter with a physician by obtaining a non-binding commitment from the physician to prescribe the PSR’s assigned product.” PSRs worked longer and irregular hours to generate sales in their territory for which they received compensation in the form of bonuses. The court concluded that PSRs “plainly and unmistakably fit within the terms of the exemption” because they engaged in “the functional equivalent of an outside salesperson and to hold otherwise is to ignore reality in favor of form over substance.”

The exempt status of pharmaceutical sales representatives continues to be litigated in courts across the country, and the issue is not settled. In the Novartis appeal referenced above, the U.S. Department of Labor filed an amicus brief arguing that pharmaceutical sales representatives do not qualify for the “outside sales” exemption. 

This entry was written by Robert Pritchard.

¹ Note: In the decision, SmithKlineBeecham is spelled as SmithKleinBeecham, which is an error.

Image credit: Alan Smithee

In Re Novartis is a consolidated class action brought by Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (“Reps”) from California, New York and other states against Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation, one of the largest drug manufacturers in the United States. Claiming that they were misclassified as exempt employees, the Reps seek overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Meaning of “Sales”

In the first of two justifications for its defense judgment, the district court held that Novartis Reps met the requirements of the outside salesperson exemption. Under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, “any employee employed . . . in the capacity of outside salesman” is exempt from the overtime pay requirement. 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1). DOL regulations define “outside salesman” as any employee “whose primary duty is making sales” while “customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such duty.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(A).

The parties do not dispute that Novartis Reps were employed “away from the employer’s place of business.” The real issue before the Second Circuit is the meaning of “sales.” The DOL’s brief draws a fine line distinction between the alleged promotional activities of the Reps and actual sales under the FLSA. The latter occurs only when consideration is paid by the client or customer, according to the DOL. Reps do join Novartis’ “sales force” and receive training in both sales techniques and pharmacology. However, FDA regulations bar Reps from selling drugs directly to physicians. Instead, Reps seek to persuade physicians to write prescriptions for Novartis products, ideally resulting in a “close,” i.e., obtaining a physician’s verbal commitment to prescribe Novartis drugs when appropriate. As part of Novartis’ incentive program, between 15% and 25% of the Reps’ salary comes from commission on the number of prescriptions written by physicians within the Reps’ territory. The average salary after incentives is $91,500. Though the DOL admits that the Reps’ duties “bear some of the indicia of sales,” it nevertheless objects to their classification as outside salespersons. In short, unless the Reps actually “make sales,” they do not qualify for the exemption, according to the DOL.

The Degree of “Discretion”

The lower court also held that that “even if [the Reps] are not outside salespersons, they are administrative employees and are still exempt.” In Re Novartis, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 640. The “administrative employee” exemption applies only to employees who exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(3).

In challenging the lower court’s ruling on the “administrative employee” exemption, the DOL urges the Second Circuit to interpret “discretion and independent judgment . . . in the light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises.” In so doing, the DOL stresses that Reps must follow a prepared script when contacting target physicians, and they are prohibited from deviating from the “core message” in the marketing pitch. Novartis limits dissemination methods to certain pre-approved materials, including drug samples, pamphlets, clinical studies, and visual aids. When presented with the same facts, however, the lower court criticized the plaintiff Reps for characterizing themselves as “mere ‘robots’ or ‘automatons.’” The lower court found that the Reps exercise sufficient discretion in deploying the core messages and supporting materials. For instance, Reps tailor their presentations to the physician’s schedule, patient base, prescribing habits, and even personality. They also set their own daily call schedules, and use personal entertainment budgets to host informational events for physicians on their target lists.

The DOL argues that the district court’s ruling on the administrative exemption is “unpersuasive in its attempt to ‘back-fit’ the FLSA regulations into the pharmaceutical industry’s practices.” However, as noted by the lower court, “[c]ourts routinely hold that employees may exercise discretion and independent judgment, even when they carry out their duties within the confines of a highly regulated industry.”

This entry was written by Michael Harvey.

Photo credit: Tom Varco

The court’s decision is comprised of two separate findings. First, the court found that the drivers’ intrastate transportation was a part of the “practical continuity of movement” that resulted in the recyclable material crossing state lines between the point of origin and the point of destination. The plaintiffs argued that the continuity of movement was interrupted when the recyclable materials were processed, which took place in Indiana. The court found otherwise. Crucial to the court’s finding was the fact that the recyclable material at issue—unlike the meat scraps at issue in Goldberg v. Faber Indus., Inc., 291 F.2d 232 (7th Cir. 1961)–was not transformed to a new good when it was processed. The court also relied on Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2002) (delivery drivers who collected empty beer bottles for recycling center that sold recycled glass to clients out-of-state were exempt under Motor Carrier exemption). Additionally, the court found relevant the policy of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that the practical continuity of movement is not interrupted by repackaging or reconfiguring, but may be interrupted where a good is substantially modified. Finding that the recyclable materials that the plaintiffs transported were not substantially modified, the court held that the practical continuity of movement was uninterrupted.

Second, the court found that the defendants had a fixed and persisting intent to ship a majority of the recyclables that the plaintiffs transported to out-of-state destinations. Again, the court looked to the ICC. The ICC policy provides that a fixed and persisting intent may exist where a shipper has a factual basis for projecting out-of-state sales. The defendants sold more than 50% of the recyclable material transported by the plaintiffs to out-of-state recipients that executed advance purchase agreements. These facts led the court to conclude that the defendants had the necessary fixed and persisting intent.

The intrastate activities of the plaintiffs were part of a practical continuity of movement across state lines and the defendants had a fixed and persisting intent to ship the recyclables in interstate commerce when the shipment began. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ intrastate activities constituted participation in interstate commerce as required by the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the FLSA. The plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to damages under the FLSA.

This entry was written by Brian Mosby.

Upon the termination of her employment with Sears, Ericka Brown was presented with a separation agreement, which she voluntarily elected to sign.  That agreement entitled her to a severance package, and also precluded her from bringing certain waivable claims against the company.  Significantly, the agreement also required her to waive her right to bring, or participate in, a class action relating to her employment with the company.  Despite this agreement, Brown, in her lawsuit against the company, sought to recoup allegedly unpaid wages under a variety of state statutory and common law legal theories, and sought to proceed by way of both a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action and a Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action.

The court agreed with Sears that even though employees such as Brown cannot waive the right to assert individual FLSA rights—including alleged entitlement to minimum wage, overtime and the recovery of liquidated damages—they can waive other causes of action for alleged non-payment of wages under other laws, including state claims for breach of contract, as well as the right to bring  any variety of class action (including an FLSA collective action) on behalf of others.  Specifically, the court reasoned that the waiver of the ability to bring an action on behalf of others does not diminish an employee’s ability to assert her own rights under the FLSA. This ruling provides protection to employers who have, for valuable consideration, procured these waivers.

This blog entry was authored by Laurent Badoux.

In addition to the FIL Training guide, the Department also produced copies of the handwritten employee interview summaries prepared by the investigator on the Department’s “Employee Personal Interview Statement” (WH-31) form. Together, these materials provide a fascinating glimpse into the Department’s internal thinking and strategies on how to conduct employee interviews during FLSA investigations. Some of the key points emphasized in the FIL Training guide include:

• The importance of including the Department’s legal counsel, the Solicitor of Labor (SOL), in the investigation process and consulting with the SOL on “the kind and amount of information needed from interviews in order to resolve the issues presented.” In other words, employers should always assume that the Department is actively consulting with its attorney and preparing for potential litigation during the course of an FLSA investigation.

• The method for determining how many employee interviews should be conducted by the investigator in order to produce a “representative sample.” As explained in the FIL Training guide, with a “small number of affected employees (10 or less), it is reasonable to interview all of them.” By contrast, the guide recommends that with a “large number of employees (100 or more), interview about 20%.”

• Specific suggestions on interview techniques and styles that Department investigators can use to put “an employee at ease” and facilitate “the free flow of pertinent information.”

• The Department’s preferences on interview locations and methods (“[p]ersonal face-to-face interviews are the best method,” while “[t]elephone interviews are acceptable” and “[m]ail interviews are the least desirable”).

• The suggested form and substance of the signed employee interview statements each investigator is required to prepare and obtain at the conclusion of employee interviews.

• The requirement that investigators “evaluate the demeanor, articulateness, self-confidence, and other appropriate characteristics of each witness,” and document that evaluation for future use by the SOL to “determine which employees will be the best witnesses” against the employer in any future litigation.

Each year the Department receives 25,000-30,000 new employee wage complaints under the FLSA. Although only about one percent of these complaints end up in court, the Department’s FIL Training guide shows that the Department conducts each investigation with the understanding that it may result in contested litigation. Given this policy, and the detailed training materials and methods used by the Department to prepare for the possibility of litigation, employers need to ensure that they devote the same time and effort to preparing their response to FLSA wage and hour investigations.

This blog entry was authored by Douglas E. Smith.
 

In misclassification litigation under the FLSA, plaintiffs often argue that the foregoing “fluctuating workweek” method of calculating overtime should not be permitted. These plaintiffs contend that the “clear mutual understanding” required by § 778.114 must include an understanding that overtime premiums will be calculated using the “half-time” method. Of course, in misclassification cases, overtime was not paid at all, so the parties necessarily did not have any understanding as to how overtime premiums would be calculated. If the plaintiffs prevail on this argument, therefore, the “fluctuating workweek” method could never be used in misclassification cases, and plaintiffs in misclassification cases would be awarded overtime damages using the “time and one-half” method (pursuant to which their weekly salary would be divided by 40 hours or some other fixed number of hours, and the resulting hourly rate would be multiplied by 1.5 and then paid for all overtime hours).

The method used for calculating overtime can have a significant impact on the potential exposure in litigation. For example, if an employee was paid a weekly salary of $1,000, overtime liability for a week in which the employee worked 50 hours would be: (a) $100 using the “fluctuating workweek” method ($1,000 ÷ 50 x 0.5 x 10); but (b) $375 using the “time and one-half” method ($1,000 ÷ 40 x 1.5 x 10).

In Clements v. Serco, Inc. the Tenth Circuit held that in order to take advantage of the “fluctuating workweek” method of calculating overtime in a misclassification case, the employer must prove only that the parties had a “clear and mutual understanding” that the employees would be paid a fixed salary for all hours worked.530 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2008).

The Clements decision provides some welcome relief to employers faced with misclassification litigation. But it also provides a valuable lesson for all employers. In order to establish the existence of a “clear and mutual understanding” that the employees would be paid a fixed salary for all hours worked, offer letters and other documentation regarding an exempt employee’s weekly salary should not suggest that the salary is compensation for a fixed number of hours per week or for a fixed weekly schedule. Rather, the documentation should confirm that the salary is intended to compensate the employee for all hours worked each workweek, whether many or few.

For more comprehensive coverage of this issue, see our article on Littler.com.

Robert Pritchard authored this blog entry.