New USDOL Wage Hour Administrator Issues Opinion Letter Finding Paralegals Can Be Exempt: A New Day Dawning!
Under the Trump Administration, there has been a return to the issuance of Opinion Letters which I have highly applauded. I also applaud the rather pro-employer stance that many of these Letters have reflected. Another example of both
The whole trick for a plaintiff (and his lawyers) in a FLSA collective action case is to try to get conditional certification. Once that happens, the stakes automatically escalate for the defendant-employer, often leaving settlement as the most viable and cheapest manner of resolving the case. This process becomes more complicated when there is, as
This is a very interesting case. A group of nurses at a Texas hospital claimed they their employer intended to pay them an annual salary rather than an hourly rate and thus they were owed no back wages. They won in the lower court and appellate court but, now, the Texas Supreme Court has reversed,
I have blogged numerous times about these automatic lunch deduction cases and have suggested remedies. Yet, these cases proliferate. Another very recent example is that of a hospital that has agreed to pay more than $4,000,000 to settle a FLSA collective action where the workers allege that their employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
When the Department of Labor, whether USDOL or a state agency, issues an Opinion Letter on a certain topic/issue or follows a consistent course of conduct vis-à-vis a particular employer, that employer is allowed to rely on that letter or administrative practice or enforcement policy. The Opinion Letter or consistent practice then acts as a
I continue to blog about working time cases because these are the kind of lawsuits that can sneak up on an employer who does not realize that a certain pre-shift activity may in fact constitute working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is again illustrated by a trucking company case where the Company
There is a tripartite test for independent contractor under the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation statute (and many other States), the so-called “ABC” test. Under this test, services performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Department of Labor that: (a) Such individual
I have defended many off-the-clock working time cases and I submit that they are very dangerous for employers. This is because they are particularly amenable to class certification because it is likely that there is a common policy applicable to the members of the class. This premise is highlighted by a recent settlement for a
I had blogged about this case when it first came out. It struck me as very interesting because not only is the subject matter unique, it also raises the whole thorny issue of what is (or is not) working time. This latest case involves Parking Production Assistants (PPAs). These people worked for CBS and their
At long last, new USDOL Opinion Letters are bursting forward. Like Spring. The agency just issued three new letters on a variety of topics, including one of my favorites, travel time. The other letters address issues of compensable break time as well as the kinds of lump-sum payments that could be garnished for child support.