Loan Officers Seek Bailout In Another Financial Services Industry Class Action

In a case entitled Sexton v. Franklin First Financial, Ltd, a federal judge has granted conditional certification to a FLSA collective action alleging Franklin First Financial Ltd. failed to pay overtime to a class of loan officers. This is the latest (and surely not the last) of a host of class actions filed under federal and state wage-hour laws, targeted at securing overtime for employees allegedly misclassified as exempt.

The suit emanated from the Company’s West Hempstead, New York office. The primary basis of the suit is the overtime-exemption-misclassification issue. The employees involved in the suit sell residential mortgage loans. In an interesting twist, the Company allegedly paid loan officers on a commission-basis and were not paid unless they made a sale. The allegations are that these commissions did not meet the required minimum of at least $455 per week. This also raises the issue of whether the employees were paid a “salary,” which is an essential component of fitting within the exemption.

The federal judge determined that there was sufficient similarity between the single named plaintiff and others who might opt into the lawsuit. Significantly, in these early steps of class certification, the plaintiff must only make a “modest” showing of pleadings and evidence, a showing that practiced plaintiff-side attorneys are all too familiar with. If evidence of a common policy or practice is shown, the class receives conditional certification, followed by additional discovery and motions and possibly mediation.

The estimate is that there are hundreds of potential loan officers, scattered throughout several branches on Long Island.. Although the court has initially excluded outside loan officers from the suit, if subsequent discovery shows that they are also similarly situated to the inside loan officers, they will be added as well.

If this does not settle the case, or the employer wants to roll the dice on the exemption issue, then a trial ultimately ensues. Before that stage, however, a very careful analysis has to be done of whether there is a viable exemption defense. Ideally, this should be done way before a lawsuit or possible lawsuit is even on the horizon. The stakes in these cases are much too high to wait until a lawsuit explodes and thrusts the entire exemption issue into the forefront. Internal auditing and scrutiny of all salaried positions to make reasoned determinations of exempt status is what is needed, sooner, not later.
 

Salary Deductions Can Make Workers Lose Exempt Status

Employers cannot only think of job duties when it comes to ensuring that exemptions are maintained. Improper deductions from salary can undermine exempt status and, even with the revised FLSA regulations in place, which allow for corrections to be made without jeopardizing exempt status, mistakes can still be made. The danger is that if a common or system-wide “policy” exists, then all exempt employees are in danger of having their exempt status destroyed.

For example, in Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness Inc., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that deductions made by a health and fitness center employer from the base salaries of department heads to recoup portions of paid bonuses when the employees’ performance fell below a certain prescribed level caused the workers to lose their exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the lower court, which had concluded that that the employees were not paid on a salaried basis, due to the improper deductions made from their salaries during a two-month period in 2005. Thus, without any examination of whether their duties fit the duties prong of the exempt test, the employees were adjudged to be non-exempt, thereby entitled to overtime.

If the salary issue is the bone of contention and the employer loses on that, everything else becomes moot. The employee could hire and fire, prepare employee evaluations, determine who gets raises and promotions and who does not, in short, all manner of supervisory duties and the employee will still be non-exempt. Employers must be extra vigilant in ensuring not only that exempt employees receive the proper salary (under the FLSA at least $455, but individual states might be higher) and always watching out that improper deductions, meaning, primarily partial day deductions are not made. The consequences could be quite serious for failure to adhere to these guidelines, with but very little recourse by or defense for the employer.