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

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.