Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights : New Jersey Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild LLP Law Firm : Serving Essex County, Sussex County, Roseland, New Jersey

In a January 21, 2010 posting in the New York Labor and Employment Law Report, Joseph Dole reported on a case entitled Young v Cooper Cameron Corporation, recently issued by the Second Circuit.  The case concerned the applicability of the professional exemption to an individual performing engineering design work on sophisticated equipment.  While he had twenty years of experience, he only had a high-school degree.  The court ruled that the employer incorrectly classified him as exempt.

 The issue rose and fell on the absence of a college or higher degree in a specialized field of training.  To me, this is the completely wrong result.  The proposed new professional regulations had sought to allow a claim of professional exemption even without the "degree," if experience and education were deemed to fit the exemption.

The final regulations stepped back from this and hearkened back to the old tests.  They do leave a crack open, attesting that there is the "possibility" that an individual may fit the professional exemption as an attorney, for example, even if he did not go to law school, like, for example, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.  The regulations, however, envision this as a one in a million occurrence and I think, especially in the computer and technology fields,. experience of a professional nature is often supplanting the straight, "pure" education.

In fact, I understand that Bill Gates did not finish college.  Under the rationale of this case and the current FLSA regulations, this billionaire would be found to be non-exempt and entitled to overtime. 

Funny, ain't' it?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A federal judge has agreed to a settlement between the parties in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action where a group of former employees sued the employer, a cement company, for overtime. The case, filed in federal court in Florida, is entitled Webster v. Cemex Inc.

Interestingly, the lead plaintiff, Timothy Webster, will recover only $2,600. Payments to the other class members have not been disclosed. The basis of the suit was that the Company paid the drivers by the delivery and did not pay overtime when the actual work hours exceeded forty (40).  The plaintiffs sought compensation for unpaid overtime for three years (seeking a willfulness finding) as well as liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees.

Although the Company asserted it had strong defenses against the claim, it settled this case, which had been consolidated with a second FLSA action against Cemex; that action was also lodged by drivers.

The issue comes back to exemption status.  If the drivers were non-exempt, they were entitled to overtime when they worked more than forty hours.  There is a computational formula built into the FLSA for determining how to compute overtime to workers paid by the delivery, or by the “stop” or on a commission basis, or a day rate, or any other form of compensation.  Ultimately, the employer must figure out the regular rate and then determine the overtime.

These drivers might or might not have fit within the motor carrier exemption, but likely no other exemption, certainly not the white collar exemptions as they were not paid a salary.  The lesson for employers is simple----absent an applicable exemption, all workers are entitled to overtime, regardless of the applicable computational methodology.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If the economy rebounds in 2010, employees will be looking for enhanced raises to offset the dismal or non-existent raises of 2009.  If the economy does not rebound, employers will be faced with tough decisions and even tougher conversations with their employees concerning this lack of increases.

There are legal pitfalls to be avoided in making these decisions and having these (often difficult) talks.  Learn how to manage worker expectations, realistic or otherwise,  interact with employees who are not getting hoped-for raises and, most importantly, what legal issues (e.g. discrimination?) inform these decisions and discussions.

Come join me in a webinair I am conducting on January 27, 2010 from 1:30-3PM, EST, where these issues will be examined.  The registration link is:

hrtrainingcenter.com/showWCDetails.asp

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent posting in the Connecticut Employment Law blog,  http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2009/12/articles/wage-and-hour/a-dollar-here-35-mi Steve Lavelle wrote about a recent case in involving the exemption status of Store Managers for Family Dollar Stores.  The evidence showed that the employees rarely, if ever, discharged managerial duties and spent the vast amount of their time in performing duties identical to subordinates and thus their classification as exempt from overtime was erroneous.  He warns that the employer must always be be vigilant about properly classifying employees as exempt or non-exempt.  

I have often advised clients that, sometimes, it is safer to treat titles such as Assistant Manager as non-exempt, from the outset.  Pay them hourly and time and one-half OT, but compute, or "back into" the proper hourly rate by determining the number of hours that will be routinely worked (e.g. 45, 50) in given weeks.  In such a manner, the exempt/non-exempt issue never becomes an issue.

The other option for employers is to enhance the actual job duties of these and similarly titled employees so that they do, insofar as possible, exercise managerial functions (e.g. hiring, firing, input into raise/promotions).  This is harder to do, takes significant managerial oversight and must be monitored.  It can be done, however, and then the person or persons will truly be exempt, whether under the Fair Labor Standards Act or any state wage-hour law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Law firms are usually defending clients in wage-hour suits where the allegation is that the employee claims he/she has been misclassified as exempt when they are really not and are due overtime. But, law firms themselves must be diligent about properly classifying their own employees, especially when they categorize employees exempt under the administrative exemption. This is the lesson being learned by the so-called boutique intellectual property law firm of Turocy & Watson LLP, where a legal secretary has filed a class action, charging that the firm did not properly pay the “class” of secretaries overtime.

The case is docketed as Osolin v. Turocy & Watson, LLP et al filed in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio and charges a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.. The plaintiff believes there are approximately 30 legal secretaries in the class. All of these secretaries were paid a salary and were allegedly misclassified as exempt.

The complaint alleges that none of the plaintiffs did any managerial work or directed the work of employees, or had authority to hire and fire. Under that factual predicate, the plaintiffs would not fit within the executive exemption, but the firm will likely defend on the basis that they are administrative employees. As I have often warned, this is the most difficult exemption to prove and if the facts show that the secretaries performed secretarial, clerical work the majority of the time, this exemption will not be available as it will founder on the “discretion and independent judgment” element.

It is highly doubtful that the firm could show they were professional employees, even if the employees were given the moniker “paralegal,” as paralegals are explicitly deemed non-exempt under the federal regulations.

The burden of proof is always on the employer in an exemption case. This behooves employers, law firms or otherwise, to make reasoned, defensible exemption determinations and classifications at the time of hire, because it only takes a single plaintiff to start a world of trouble. In sum, these lawyers need a lawyer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Ho, in the New York Labor and Employment Law Report, writes that in difficult economic times, employers may resort more to the use of so-called independent contractors, to avoid all personnel/administrative costs affiliated with bringing statutory employees on board.  I agree that this will continue to be a flashpoint in the coming year, but one that hearkens back to longstanding problems for putative employers.

He notes that different statutes have different tests.  There are two things, however, that remain constant throughout all of these different statutory tests--control and proof of an independently established business.  I know, in New Jersey, which uses the A-B-C test, the "C" element, i.e. independent business, is the one that most employers get into trouble on.  The putative contractor must be shown to be in his own business, such as evidencing that the business is incorporated, having liability insurance, business cards, advertising and, most importantly, doing work for more than just one employer. 

If there is not a spread of work done for a number of different employers, a Department of Labor and its sub-divisions, such as Unemployment, and Wage-Hour,  will, in knee-jerk fashion, assert that the person or persons are employees.  That leads not only to demand for payment of back-due premiums, but also, more dangerously, assessment of penalties, which could, under many state constructs, be escalated geometrically.

John's piece can be viewed at  http://www.nylaborandemploymentlawreport.com/articles/wage-and-hour/ 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have posted a few times about Fair Labor Standards Act donning and doffing cases. The general rule is that donning and doffing is compensable if these preliminary and postliminary activities are integral to the performance of the employee’s primary job.

For a rule, there is always an exception. In a case entitled Johnson v. Koch Foods Inc., filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, a federal judge has ruled that because the parties’ labor contract applicable to covering chicken processors working at a cut and kill plant explicitly excluded compensation for time spent donning and doffing certain sanitary and safety gear, the workers were not entitled to compensation for the time it took to put and remove the gear.

The judge analogized the putting on/taking off of the gear to “changing clothes,” which is not compensable under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The court did warn, however, that of a jury determined that such activities were integral and indispensable, they then could be compensable under the “continuous workday rule.”

This result seems anomalous because the workers were required to put on the protective gear prior to reporting to the production line, to begin their primary work, but they were only compensated for the time actually on the line.

There is a divergence in the federal Circuits as to what constitutes “clothes.” The Ninth Circuit has held that the “changing clothes” safe harbor applies only when the items at issue are clearly and unmistakably clothing, as is commonly understood. However, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the term applies to hairnets, gloves and hearing protection equipment. The US Department of Labor has issued an Opinion Letter concluding that the Section 203(o) definition of clothes “includes items worn on the body for covering, protection, or sanitation.”

This issue may ultimately have to be decided by the US Supreme Court. In the meantime, employers need to make assessments of the indispensability of the preliminary activity to the main job and start the analysis of compensability from that vantage point.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, there is no law requiring employees receive a lunch period or break times. However, when the employer gives time for lunch, the employees must receive at least thirty minutes and the time must be uninterrupted. Put differently, the employees must be completely relieved from duty. When employees are not so relieved, they must then be compensated for that time, i.e. the half-hour, which all becomes “converted” into working time.

This is what the DOL found happened in this investigation, which ultimately included 4000 nurses. Some of the nurses answered phones while on lunch and others performed “some” duties. The result, however, is the same---all of the time is converted.

The hospitals also had an automatic deduction policy, by which one-half hour was automatically deducted from the nurses’ time for that day, on the assumption that the lunch was taken. Although the hospitals had a policy about not working during lunch (i.e. not carrying the hospital-provided phones during meal breaks) and also had a policy that allowed nurses to cancel the automatic deduction if they performed actual, productive work. The hospitals claimed that the nurses did not follow the policy. The result was a supervised settlement providing for 1.7 million dollars to be paid to the affected employees.

I have clients who have these automatic deduction systems for lunch time. As this makes clear, the automatic is not so automatic. There must still be supervisory oversight and intervention in issues where employees may have worked through lunch, to ensure that proper payment is made. The employer must have a system where employees can report that they worked through lunch and the employees, in my view, must be given training on the system, so all productive time is paid for and the DOL does not come knocking on the door.

In sum, a policy, a piece of paper, will not provide a defense to claims of uncompensated working time. More is required of the employer.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In what is a troubling trend, an employee of Amazon.com Inc. has filed a FLSA collective action for unpaid overtime. The thrust of the allegations is that the rounding policy, which rounds to the nearest fifteen minutes, violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and deprives employees of compensation for alleged productive working time.   The case is docketed as Austin v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The suit is particularly dangerous because it evidently seeks a nationwide class action of all Amazon “warehouse associates” who were employed over the past three years. There are facilities in several states, such as Arizona, Delaware and Texas. If certified as a class, there could possibly be more than 21,000 employees involved. The total exposure on such an action could run to the millions of dollars.

Apparently, the Company forbids employees from punching in early; this creates an anomaly because those employees who get to work “first” get paid for their entire shift, while those who are compelled to wait in line to punch in and do so eight or nine minutes after start time, find their time rounded up to fifteen minutes after the start time and start being paid only from that point on. Under law, if employees punch in and immediately begin productive work, they must be paid from that minute on, without the benefit of rounding.

The situation is complicated due to the advent of electronic timekeeping, including so-called “smart clocks,” which do not allow employees to punch in before their start times. The plaintiff’s attorney called attention to this issue and urged that the electronic technology in fact allowed for payment to the minute, so there was no reason not to properly pay the employees.  He also conceded that some employees could benefit from the policy by deriving some extra minutes from the rounding system, but stressed that the majority of employees would lose money from the rounding procedure.

If the allegations are true, then the actual impact of the policy is that workers work “off the clock,” depriving them of straight time and overtime wages. I believe this is a real problem in the industrial world and is complicated by the advanced technology of timekeeping. Employees must be paid for all productive work and a timekeeping system cannot act to deprive the employees, of those wages. Employers should institute appropriate policies and, more importantly, must exercise supervisory and managerial oversight to ensure that employees are paid for all hours actually worked.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks