Legislation Introduced to Update FLSA Computer Employee Exemption

Bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate last week would update the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) computer employee exemption. Section 13(a)(17) of the FLSA establishes minimum wage and overtime exemptions for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similarly skilled workers provided that these employees’ specific job duties and compensation meet certain requirements. To learn more about the legislation and its potential implications for employers, please continue reading at Littler's Washington D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Photo credit: PressFoto

Golden State Update

State Flag of CaliforniaIn 2011, for the first time since 2003, California's legislative process was controlled by a governor and a legislature of the same party. Yet the results at the end of this year's session were not as one-sided as some had predicted or expected. In the first year of his second administration as Governor of California, Jerry Brown stayed true to his promise to paddle on both sides of the canoe when deciding which of the 889 bills presented to him he would sign, and which he would veto. For California private sector employers, the results reflect the governor's methodology. To learn more about the bills signed into law this month by California's governor that affect all, or many, California private sector employers, please continue reading Littler's ASAP, Paddling on Each Side: How California Private Sector Employers Must Change Their Operations in 2012, by Christopher Cobey and Isela Pérez.

Worker Misclassification Legislation Introduced in Congress

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has reintroduced legislation that would create new record-keeping requirements for employers that hire independent contractors, and impose stricter penalties for misclassification. Notably, the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (H.R. 3178) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers to keep records on and notify workers of their employment or independent contractor classification and their right to challenge that classification. To learn more about the proposed legislation and its potential implications for employers, please continue reading at Littler's D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Massachusetts High Court Rules Wage Act's Mandatory Treble Damages Provision Does Not Apply Retroactively

By Christopher Kaczmarek and Jeanne Barber

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial CourtIn July 2008, Massachusetts amended its state wage and hour laws to provide for mandatory awards of treble damages for plaintiffs who prevailed under those statutes. Since then, lawyers have disagreed as to whether this treble damages provision should apply retroactively. On August 31st, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court resolved this dispute by unanimously holding that the treble damages provision does not apply retroactively.

In Rosnov v. Molloy, the plaintiff, an attorney, filed a complaint on April 17, 2007, claiming that her former partner withheld commissions from her in violation of the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff in March of 2009.

Between the time the plaintiff filed her complaint and the jury rendered its verdict, the Massachusetts legislature amended the Massachusetts Payment of Wages Law and other state wage and hour laws, including the law requiring payment of overtime. Prior to the amendment, a judge had discretion in determining whether to award treble damages to a prevailing plaintiff under these laws. A judge could award treble damages if the defendant’s conduct was outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or the employer’s reckless indifference to the rights of others. The 2008 amendment, however, required that a court award treble damages to a prevailing plaintiff.

After the trial, and in light of the 2008 amendment, the superior court ruled that the plaintiff in Rosnov was entitled to mandatory treble damages and in doing so, applied the mandatory treble damages provision retroactively. On appeal, the Supreme Judicial Court overturned the lower court’s decision.

In reaching its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court reiterated the basic presumption that statutes operate prospectively. The court went on to discuss the existing case law, which provides that a statute applies retroactively only if the legislature indicates an intent that the statute apply retroactively or if the statute does not affect substantive rights. The court found no evidence that the legislature intended the 2008 amendment to apply retroactively. Moreover, the court concluded that the 2008 amendment affected the defendant’s substantive rights because it created “a marked increase in the liability a defendant faces.” Accordingly, the court vacated the prior treble damages award and remanded the case to the superior court for a determination of whether a discretionary treble damages award was appropriate under the circumstances.

The 2008 amendment led to a significant increase in wage and hour litigation in Massachusetts. Although the mandatory treble damages provision remains in effect (despite numerous attempts in the legislature to repeal or amend it), the Rosnov decision is welcome news for employers. In light of Rosnov, employers are not subject to mandatory treble damages awards for alleged wage and hour violations that pre-date the 2008 amendment.

Arizona Allows Employers to Mandate Electronic Payment of Wages

By William Hays Weissman

Effective on July 20, 2011, employers in Arizona can mandate electronic payment of wages. Employees that do not elect direct deposit may be paid by payroll debit card, which now can be treated as the default option.

HR 2151 amends Ariz. Stat. sections 23-350 and 23-351 by allowing employers to choose one of four methods of payment of wages: (1) cash; (2) check; (3) if elected by the employee, direct deposit into a financial institution of the employee’s choice; or (4) if an employee does not designate a financial institution for direct deposit, by payroll debit card.

If an employer chooses to pay wages by payroll debit card, the employee must be entitled to withdraw his or her full wages without fee at least one time per pay period, but not more than once per week. The employer must also provide the employee with a list of all potential fees an employee may incur. Also, if the employee is paid by direct deposit or payroll debit card, the employer must furnish the employee with a written or electronic statement of the employee’s earnings and withholdings.

Payroll cards can be a win-win option for both employers and employees. Employers are given greater flexibility in methods of paying wages at reduced cost, and with greater security than cash or traditional checks. Employees no longer have to incur check cashing fees, and also have protection against lost cash. While it is not clear that Arizona’s bill represents any kind of trend by the states toward mandating electronic payment of wages, Arizona’s law should definitely be welcome by Arizona employers.

Photo credit: MBPHOTO, INC.

Maine Governor Abolishes Joint Task Force On Employee Misclassification

Maine Executive Order 10 FY 11/12On January 20, 2011, the Governor of Maine, Paul R. LePage, issued an Executive Order abolishing the State’s Joint Task Force on Employee Misclassification. The Task Force was established by former Governor John Baldacci in 2009 to address concerns that employers allegedly were misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid obligations under federal and state laws, including laws governing wage and hour issues. According to the Executive Order issued by Governor LePage, the Task Force added an unnecessary “extra layer of bureaucracy, to take actions on a matter within the shared jurisdiction of the Legislature, the Executive Department and the Judicial Department.” The Executive Order also notes that future legislation could negate or alter the Task Force’s determinations and that the Task Force has created uncertainty within the business community. Governor LePage has expressed concern that the various definitions and rules governing independent contractors under state and federal law have gone “too far” and caused some businesses to virtually eliminate their use of independent contractors. Accordingly, the Governor asked his staff to draft legislation addressing the varying classification standards and establishing the same definition of “independent contractor” for all agencies and businesses.

This entry was written by Sarah Green.

Pennsylvania Construction Workplace Misclassification Act Signed by Governor Rendell

On October 13, 2010, Governor Rendell signed into law the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act. The Act curtails the circumstances under which a construction worker may be classified as an independent contractor for purposes of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.

Under the Act, to be classified as an independent contractor, a construction worker must meet three criteria: (1) have a written contract to perform services; (2) be free from the hiring party’s control or direction when performing such services; and (3) be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

For the hired party to be “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business,” the hired party must: (1) possess the essential tools for the job, independent of the person for whom the services are performed; (2) realize a profit or loss as a result of performing the services; (3) perform the services through a business he owns, at least in part; (4) maintain an independent business location; (5) either perform similar services for another hiring party while meeting the first four requirements or credibly hold himself out as able to perform similar services; and (6) maintain individual liability insurance during the term of the contract of at least $50,000. Each criterion must be specifically met in order to classify a worker as an independent contractor.

Construction industry employers who misclassify workers and fail to provide coverage or make required payments or contributions under the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Law may be penalized with fines or incarceration. Officers and agents of those employers, and those who intentionally contract with such an employer knowing that it intends to misclassify workers in violation of the Act, are subject to the same penalties. The Act further prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers.

The law goes into effect on February 11, 2011. Before that time companies engaged in construction should carefully review their arrangements with independent contractors to ensure they comply with the requirements of the law.

This entry was written by Thomas Benjamin Huggett and Matthew J. Hank.

Photo credit: BartCo

Bill Would Target Independent Contractor Misclassification

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) have introduced a bill that would curtail the use of a federal “safe harbor” that allows businesses to treat workers as independent contractors for federal employment tax purposes, regardless of the employee’s actual status under the common law test. The Fair Playing Field Act of 2010 (pdf) (H.R. 6128, S. 3786) would, among other things, require the Secretary of the Treasury to issue prospective guidance on worker classification for federal employment tax purposes. The safe harbor provided under section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 would continue to be available until the date an individual’s employment status is reclassified. The worker’s reclassification date would be the earlier of (a) the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning more than 180 days after the date of an employee classification determination by the Secretary of the Treasury; or (b) the effective date of the “first application final regulation” issued by the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to such individual (or if later, the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning more than 180 days after such regulation is issued). To learn more about the bill and its potential implications for employers, please continue reading at Littler's Washington, D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Photo credit: SchulteProductions

New York Enacts Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights

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

City of Austin, Texas Passes A Mandatory Employee Rest Break Ordinance

Construction Workers on BreakThe City of Austin, Texas recently passed an ordinance requiring that employers in the construction industry give employees a rest break of no less than 10 minutes for every four hours worked. The rest break must be scheduled as near as possible to the midpoint of the work period, and an employee may not work more than 3.5 hours without a rest break. Narrow in scope, the new ordinance applies only to employees performing construction activities at a construction site. An employee is not entitled to a rest break if he or she works less than 3.5 hours or spends more than half of his or her time engaged in non-strenuous work in a climate-controlled environment. Employers must post a sign (in English and Spanish) describing the rest break requirements in a conspicuous place or in areas where notices to employees are customarily posted. An employer that fails to give the required rest break or that fails to post the required sign can be found guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. The ordinance also provides for civil fines of $100 to $500 for each day a violation occurs. The ordinance does not expressly provide for a private right of action. Enacted on July 29, 2010, the ordinance amends Title 4 of the Austin City Code and becomes effective immediately upon enactment.

Although the City of Austin's new ordinance is narrow in scope (i.e., it applies only to construction industry employers and only to those employees engaged in strenuous construction activities on a construction site), it presents a new development in Texas law. For the most part, employers in Texas are not required to give employees rest breaks. To our knowledge, this is the first time a state or local government entity has mandated employee breaks in Texas. Nonetheless, this may portend of things to come. Will the law eventually be expanded to cover other industries? Will other cities in Texas follow suit? Or will the Texas legislature intervene in an attempt to preserve uniformity throughout the state?

This new ordinance also illustrates the need for employers to remain vigilant of changes in the law. An employer, in particular an out-of-state employer, may look at Texas law in general and see that there is no state-wide mandate on employee rest breaks. The employer may overlook or simply not drill down far enough to realize that local laws may require more of employers than generally applicable state or federal laws.

This entry was written by Jim Cuaderes.

Photo credit: BartCo

Illinois Gets Tough on Wage Violations

On July 30, 2010, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed Senate Bill 3568, the most extensive change to the state’s wage theft statute in decades. The amendment to the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2011, focuses on the following:

  • Broader coverage;
  • Efficient enforcement mechanisms;
  • Enhanced civil and criminal penalties; and
  • Increased protection from retaliation.
     

In particular, Senate Bill 3568 empowers the Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) to establish a streamlined administrative procedure for processing “small” wage claims (those under $3,000), which constitute 75% of all wage claims filed each year. Most notably, SB 3568 expressly grants employees the right to pursue their wage claims in either a private civil action or in a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. The employee may not, however, pursue both a claim with IDOL and a civil action.

With SB 3568, Illinois joins a number of states who have passed tougher legislation to address wage and hour violations, which, according to the bill’s advocates, is a growing problem. “Illinois workers deserve every penny they have earned, on-time and in-full,” said Governor Quinn “This important legislation will help Illinois workers recover unpaid wages faster and will further crack down on wage theft throughout our state.”

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

Photo credit: chestnutphoto
 

New Hampshire Amends Law to Permit Certain Deductions from Wages

State Flag of New HampshireNew Hampshire recently amended its wage and hour law to permit employers to make deductions from employees’ wages for “legal plans and identity theft plans without financial advantage to the employer when the employee has given his or her written authorization and deductions are fully recorded.” The amendment becomes effective on August 13, 2010.

Although this amendment is modest in nature, it does clarify an issue that previously had confused many New Hampshire employers. Prior to this amendment, the New Hampshire Department of Labor had taken the position that employers could not make deductions from employees’ wages for legal services plans or identity theft plans, even though employees had voluntarily enrolled in those plans and authorized the requisite deductions, because these plans were not identified as permissible deductions under the state’s wage and hour law. This law makes clear that such deductions are now permissible.

This entry was written by Christopher Kaczmarek.

Bill Would Apply Minimum Wage, Overtime to Home Care Workers

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

Photo credit: AlexRaths

Vermont Employers Now Permitted to Pay Wages by Payroll Debit Card

Vermont State FlagAs of May 21, 2010, Vermont joins a growing number of states who now allow employers to pay employee wages with payroll debit cards. The new law, Act 115 (S.58), amends Vermont State Code §§ 342 and 343 to permit an employer to credit an employee’s wages to a “payroll card account directly or indirectly established . . . in a federally insured depository institution.” Before the employer can do so, however, it must obtain the employee’s written consent, and fully disclose the terms and conditions of the payroll card account option. Furthermore, the employer may not pass on any of the expenses associated with the payroll card account to the employee nor may the employer receive any remuneration for using the card at the employee’s expense. Also, Vermont’s Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities, and Health Care Administration, the agency charged with regulating the Act, may impose additional obligations on employers who utilize payroll debit cards.

Before the passage of Act 115, Vermont employers could only pay wages by check, direct deposit, or cash. Indeed, the state’s Department of Labor had long maintained that, “A debit card does not fit the definition of cash or check defined by the [Vermont Uniform Commercial Code].” Now, employers have a cost-effective alternative to writing checks for those employees who lack or refuse to use direct deposit.

The problem for employers, however, is that the payroll debit card alternative remains just that – an alternative. Because an employee’s written consent must first be obtained, employers are prohibited from simply mandating payroll debit cards for those employees who lack or refuse to use direct deposit. Thus, employers may still have to incur the expense of paying employee wages with checks. In fact, the average, annual cost to employers in having to generate replacement checks and checks for exception pay is $48 million.

According to its drafters, the Act is a win-win for all parties: “The intent of this act is to provide employees with a convenient, safe, and flexible way to receive wages and to reduce employers’ payroll costs by allowing for the transfer of wages to a payroll card account.”

This entry was written by Milton Castro.

New Maryland Law Requires Shift Breaks for Retail Employees

State Flag of MarylandEffective March 1, 2011, retailers who conduct business in Maryland must provide their employees with mandatory shift breaks or be subject to substantial fines of up to $300 per employee for a first offense. The Healthy Retail Employee Act (the "Act"), was signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley on May 20, 2010. To continue reading about the new law and its implications for employers, see Littler's ASAP Maryland Enacts "The Healthy Retail Employee Act" and Amends Its Wage Payment and Collection Law by H. Tor Christensen and Steven E. Kaplan.

Wisconsin Governor Signs Employee Misclassification Bills into Law

State Flag of WisconsinOn May 12, 2010, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle signed into law two pieces of legislation regarding the misclassification of employees. Senate Bill 672, which will become effective January 1, 2011, requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to establish a system ensuring the proper classification of workers under unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation and labor standards laws. Specifically, the DWD is required to educate employers, employees and the public about the proper classification of persons performing services for an employer; receive and investigate complaints alleging misclassification; conduct investigations on its own initiative; inform other state or local agencies of misclassification of employees; and appoint attorneys to conduct hearings and issue decisions as appeal tribunals.

The bill also authorizes the DWD to require an employer to provide proof of maintaining proper employee records, including wage and hour information, and sufficient worker's compensation coverage for its employees. Failure to provide the requested information may result in the DWD serving a notice on the employer of the DWD's intent to issue an order requiring the employer to stop work at the locations specified in the notice. The employer will then have three business days to provide the requested information. Failure to do so may result in the issuance of an order requiring the employer to stop work at the location identified in the order. The employer may appeal the order.

The second piece of legislation -- Assembly Bill 929 -- provides that employers engaged in the painting or drywall finishing of buildings or other structures who willfully misclassify or attempt to misclassify employees, with the intent to evade the unemployment insurance laws, worker’s compensation laws, income tax laws or discrimination laws, shall be fined $25,000 for each violation. This bill amends a current law providing the same penalty for willful misclassifications in other trades in the construction industry. The DWD is required to promulgate rules defining what constitutes willful misclassification of an employee.

This entry was written by Jennifer Ciralsky.

Bill Would Target Contractor Misclassification

Legislation introduced in both the House and Senate would impose new record-keeping requirements on employers that hire independent contractors, and impose stricter penalties for misclassification. Introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act (H.R. 5107, S. 3254) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers to keep records on and notify workers of their employment or independent contractor classification and their right to challenge that classification. For more information on the legislation and its implications for employers, continue reading at Littler's D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Maryland Amends Wage Payment and Collection Law

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

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

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.

Miami-Dade County Enacts New Wage Theft Law

The County of Miami-Dade in Florida recently enacted a "Wage Theft " ordinance which makes it a crime for an employer to "fail to pay any portion of wages due to an employee, according to the wage rate applicable to that employee, within a reasonable time from the date on which that employee performed the work for which those wages were compensation."

The law defines the term "reasonable time" to mean within 14 days, unless the employer and employee agree in a writing signed by the employee to extend the deadline for payment up to 30 days from the original date . Under the new law, employees owed $60 or more in wages may file a complaint with the county. The county will then serve the employer with notice of the claim and a hearing officer will determine the amount of past wages owed and assess liquidated damages equivalent to double the amount of past wages owed. The new law became effective on February 28, 2010.

This entry was written by Paula Steele.

Developments in State Law from July 1 - December 31

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

California

A November 3, 2009 California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) memo indicated that the overtime exemption rates for licensed physicians and surgeons, and computer software employees in California will remain unchanged for the period beginning January 1, 2010.

Also, an August 19, 2009 DLSE opinion letter withdrew a 2002 opinion letter that precluded partial week furloughs of exempt employees, and in the process conformed California law on furloughing exempt employees to federal law. For more information, please see our previous entry and ASAP.

Illinois

HB 3634, effective August 14, 2009, amended Illinois’ Equal Pay Act and now requires that an employer preserve personnel records for a specified period of time. Additionally, an action to collect a wage claim must be brought within one year from the date of underpayment.

New York

SB 3357, effective October 26, 2009, requires that employers provide employees with written notice at the time of hire of their regular and overtime hourly wage rates, and to obtain a written acknowledgement of receipt of this notice. Although no particular form is required, the New York Department of Labor has created a form that employers can use to ensure compliance.

New Jersey

New Jersey Administrative Code § 12:55-2.1 was amended, effective September 21, 2009, to permit employers to withhold or divert a portion of an employee's wages for health club membership fees or for child care service. The deduction must be authorized either in writing by the employee, or under a collective bargaining agreement. For more information, please see our previous entry.

EEOC Updates Compliance Manual to Conform with Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revised a portion of its Compliance Manual addressing the timeliness of filing pay discrimination claims in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was enacted on January 29 of this year. This law overturned the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), which required plaintiffs to file a charge of compensation discrimination within 180 days (300 in jurisdictions that have a local or state law prohibiting the same form of pay discrimination) of the discriminatory act or decision. Continue reading on Littler's Washington D.C. Employment Law Update.

Newly Enacted Wage and Hour Legislation

Several new wage and hour bills made it through various state legislatures during the second quarter of the year. Below is a wrap up of new developments (including regulatory updates) from April 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009.

Alabama House Bill 144, Effective 5/19/2009. Modifying several aspects of the state child labor laws.

Colorado House Bill 1108, Effective 8/5/2009. Provides that an employer under specified circumstances is subject to penalties if an employee's paycheck is not paid because the employer's bank does not honor the paycheck.

Connecticut House Bill 6185, Effective 10/1/2009. Concerns equal pay discrimination.

Florida House Bill 569, Effective 7/1/2009. Allows wages to be paid by a payroll debit card.

Indiana Senate Bill 465, Effective 7/1/2009. Requires an employer to provide a pay stub to employees and post a notice regarding the state's minimum wage law. The notice must include an employee's basic rights and who to contact for information, questions or complaints.

Iowa House Bill 618, Effective 7/1/2009. Update to civil and criminal penalties, including increase of maximum penalty to $10,000 for the illegal use of child labor, and provides that wage discrimination is an unfair employment practice under the state civil rights act.

Kansas Senate Bill 160, Effective 1/1/2010. Increases the minimum wage from $2.65 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

Maine House Bill 280, Effective 9/18/2009. Requires break time for nursing mothers in the workplace and requires an employer to provide a sanitary space, which must be close to the work area and may not be a bathroom, for nursing mothers to express milk in privacy.

Maryland Code of Administrative Rules 09.12.02.01 -.02, Effective 6/19/2009. Amends rules relating to equal pay for equal work. Requires employers to collect certain employee data, such as the gender and racial classification of their employees and records must be maintained by the employer for 3 years.

Montana House Bill 133, Effective 10/1/2009. Amends the definition of “income” with respect to garnishments to exclude mandatory retirement and disability contributions and union dues.

Nevada Assembly Bill 84, Effective 7/1/2009. Expands exemption for salespersons to any employee in a retail or service business. In order to qualify for the exemption, the employee must earn at least half of his/her compensation through commissions and be paid more than 1½ times the minimum wage.

New Mexico House Bill 489, Effective 6/19/2009. Allows workers to collect treble damages against employers that violate the state's $7.50-an-hour minimum wage law.

North Dakota Senate Bill 2344, Effective 8/1/2009. Exempts the act of breastfeeding from the offense of indecent exposure. An employer may use the designation "infant friendly" on its promotional materials if the employer adopts a workplace breastfeeding policy that includes specific criteria.

Oklahoma Administrative Code sections 380:30-1-7, -3-4, -5, Effective 7/1/2009. Amends rules to clarify the requirements for a valid payroll deduction agreement.

Oklahoma Senate Bill 527, Effective 11/1/2009. Provides that if an employer pays an employee with a check that is subsequently returned by reason of the refusal of the bank to honor the check due to insufficient funds or a stop payment notice, the employer must reimburse the employee for any fees or costs incurred by the employee within 14 days.  Additionally requires employers to post a notice describing the pertinent provisions of the Oklahoma Minimum Wage Act. The notice must be not less than 8 1/2 by 11 inches and must be displayed and accessible to all employees in each establishment under the control of the employer.

Oregon House Bill 2826, Effective 1/1/2010. Increases the hours of the day during which children under 16 years of age may work; provides for additional hours of work during summer.

Oregon House Bill 3474, Effective 1/1/2010. Increases processing fee chargeable to employee by employer for garnishments of employee's wages.

Oregon Senate Bill 373, Effective 1/1/2010. Provides that an obligor and obligee under a support order may bring a civil action for damages against an employer or other person who withholds money under an order to withhold, but who fails to pay the withheld amounts within the time allowed by law.

Vermont House Bill 313, Effective 6/1/2009. Amends the state minimum wage law to clarify that annual adjustments to the state minimum wage are not to result in a decrease in the minimum hourly wage rate.

Washington House Bill 1596, Effective 7/26/2009. Protects a woman's right to breastfeed in a place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.
 

Fair Pay Act Reintroduced in Both House and Senate

To commemorate Equal Pay Day, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) reintroduced the Fair Pay Act (S. 904, H.R. 2151).  Continue reading on Littler's Washington DC Employment Law Update blog.

Newly Enacted Wage and Hour Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements for Use of Alternative Workweek in California Eased Slightly

Ten years after it was first enacted, and as part of the resolution of California's budget crisis, California Labor Code section 511 authorizing the use of an alternative workweek was amended for the first time (AB X2 5) last week.

The bill itself was a model of expedited lawmaking - its creation, passage, and signing took less than ten days. AB X2 5 was introduced in the Assembly as a budget trailer bill on February 11, modified to its final form on February 14, and passed finally by the Senate on February 19, with the Governor signing it the next day. The bill was never reviewed by any budget or legislative policy committee.

The amendments to Section 511:

1. Codify the language in certain existing IWC Wage Orders that allow an employer to offer employees a menu of work schedule options when proposing an alternative workweek election.

2. Specify that the proposed alternative workweek menu of work schedule options may include a regular schedule of eight-hour days. This provision nullifies advice appearing to the contrary in the January 2007 version of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement's Enforcement Policies and Interpretation Manual at section 56.7.2.2. The amended law also specifies that employees who adopt a menu of alternative workweek schedules may, with employer consent, move from one schedule option to another on a weekly basis.

3. Codify the definition in certain existing IWC Wage Orders of a readily identifiable "work unit" to include, for the purposes of an alternative workweek election, a division, department, job classification, shift, separate physical location, a recognized subdivision, or an individual, if the individual meets the criteria for an identifiable work unit.

The amendments to the statute take effect on May 21, 2009.

This blog entry was authored by Christopher E. Cobey.