In FLSA cases, plaintiff lawyers are always looking for a deep pocket and one of the avenues they use towards this “goal” is the joint employer doctrine.  That doctrine allows more than one employer to be liable for employee damages (e.g. overtime, back wages) if the employers are found to co-determine employee terms and conditions

Are two lawsuits better than one?  Not for the employer, I can tell you that.  A very interesting case is working its way through the federal courts now, where the US Department of Labor wants to take over a private lawsuit that has been filed alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations.  The government is contending

I have defended many cases in which the employee(s) claim they worked through lunch and are owed wages (or, usually, overtime).  These cases are usually difficult to defend unless the employer either compels employees to punch out and in for lunch or has another kind of fail-safe mechanism to account for this time, if legitimately

Over these last years, there have been a number of lawsuits by domestic employees against their employers and I have defended some of those.  They present a unique kind of case as these domestic servants are usually on very close terms with their employers, not the typical employer-employee relationship, but then, something happens and it

The FLSA contains a number of provisions that enable employers to manage, if not reduce, overtime costs.  One of these is called a pre-payment plan.  Under a Pre-Payment Plan, an employer pays anticipated overtime in advance in order to maintain the employee’s wage or salary level constant from pay period to pay period.  Excess payments

Many wage-hour/overtime actions are brought against restaurants; this is, and has been for some time, a disturbing pattern. Coupled with this trend is the fact that it seems that this industry has certain “customs” on paying workers that give plaintiffs a seeming leg up in these actions. So, it warms my heart when these suits