Wage and Hour Law Update : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Minimum Wage, Overtime & Service Contracts

On Friday, May 21, 2010, the Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division held a public Stakeholder Forum, during which key members of the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) discussed WHD's goals and regulatory agenda. Jackson Lewis attended the Forum. 

After welcoming the crowd, Nancy Leppink, the WHD Deputy Administrator pointed out some of WHD's accomplishments over the past year, including hiring 250 new investigators (with plans to hire 100 more in 2010) and starting the “We Can Help” campaign, aimed to reach vulnerable workers who wouldn’t otherwise report violations and non-compliance.

Next, Michael Hancock, WHD's Acting Director of Interpretation and Regulatory Analysis, explained that WHD's performance goals are to: (1) ensure that the most vulnerable workers are employed in compliance with wage and hour laws; (2) make certain that employers, including the most persistent violators, are brought into and maintain compliance with the laws enforced by the WHD; (3) foster a customer-oriented, quality-driven culture with WHD; (4) issue prevailing wage determinations that are current and accurate; and (5) pursue regulatory initiatives that broadly support and advance the Department of Labor’s vision.  Mr. Hancock indicated that to achieve these goals, WHD will:  (1) target industries in which violations are most likely to occur; (2) employ resources-leveraging strategies and technologies to affect compliance; (3) pursue corporate-wide compliance strategies to ensure that employers take on responsibility for their compliance behavior; (4) target public awareness and outreach efforts to workers populations and industries in which workers are reluctant to report violations; (5) use  penalties, sanctions, the FLSA hot goods provision, and similar strategies – as appropriate – to ensure future compliance among violators and to deter violations among other employers; and (6) implement revised Davis-Bacon wage survey processes to improve the quality and timeliness of wage determinations.

Mr. Hancock then turned to WHD’s regulatory agenda and discussed the newly issued regulations for child labor in non-agriculture, previously discussed here.  He also advised that WHD is planning to develop regulations covering the following issues with the goal of better advising both employers of legal obligations and employees of their rights to prevent violations in the first place:

1. Non-displacement of qualified workers under service contracts.  Consistent with President Obama's Executive Order, the regulations would require a covered employer to offer employment to a predecessor's employees;
2. The statutory changes to the FMLA imposed by the expanded rights to leave for active military veterans;
3. Recordkeeping obligations under the FLSA.  Such regulations would potentially require employers to advise all individuals performing services of whether they are classified as employees or contractors and provide an explanation for such determination.  (The pending Employee Misclassification Act seeks to impose similar obligations).  WHD would also like the regulation to codify burden shifting analysis for recordkeeping violations originally stated in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), and clarify record keeping obligations for live-in domestics;
4. Application of the FLSA to domestic services companions; and
5. Child labor in agriculture. 

Employers must recognize that the newly aggressive WHD is focusing on compliance and consider internal or external audits to review wage and hour compliance.  Employers in traditional low wage industries must take special notice of the WHD's initiatives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On May 20, 2010, the US Department of Labor issued new regulations concerning child labor under the FLSA.  The regulations, which are effective July 19, 2010 and available here, are focused on the limitations as to both duties and work hours applicable to 14-15 and 16-17 year-olds in “non-agricultural” occupations.  The regulations address in detail the types of machinery that minors are permitted to and barred from operating as part of their employment. 

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis has indicated that the Department now plans to update its regulations concerning child labor within the agricultural arena.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reinforcing the importance of properly crafted and enforced work-time tracking policies, Judge  Michael Telesca of the Western District of New York recently dismissed the balance of a plaintiff’s claims in a lawsuit alleging failure to compensate non-exempt employees for all overtime hours. The Court based its decision on the employer’s strong time tracking policies and protocols. Kuebel v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46533 (W.D.N.Y. May 12, 2010).

The plaintiff in Kuebel was a retail specialist responsible for the stocking, pricing and display of Black & Decker products at six Home Depot stores. Id. at * 8-9. He alleged that his supervisors instructed him to “shave” his timesheets to reflect forty hours worked each week, regardless of how many he actually worked, in contravention of Black & Decker’s written policies regarding timekeeping. Id. at * 22-23. Based on the Court’s review of the claims and plaintiff’s records of hours worked, as  reflected by his timesheets, his calendar and his company-issued PDA, the Court granted summary judgment to Black & Decker. Id. at * 32-45. 

In analyzing the Defendant’s summary judgment motion, the Court considered whether Plaintiff had demonstrated the two “essential” components of his “off the clock” claim, namely “1) the amount of uncompensated work he actually performed and (2) that defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the amount of time that plaintiff was working off-the-clock.” Id. at * 30. 

As to the first prong, evidence of the amount of uncompensated work, the Court held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the inadequacy of Defendant’s time records (which would have entitled Plaintiff to a lesser burden of proof). Id. at * 30-32. The time records were thus an accurate record of Plaintiff’s overtime worked. And, the Court further reasoned that based on plaintiff’s own contradictory statements regarding the percentage of his timesheets which were allegedly inaccurate, plaintiff could not prevail even if entitled to the lower standard, which typically is available to Plaintiffs in FLSA cases only where the employer has failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked. Id. Thus, Plaintiff could not provide evidence of the amount of allegedly uncompensated work he had performed. Id.

Even if plaintiff was able to present evidence of uncompensated time, the Court stated no monies would be due since plaintiff could not meet the second prong of the test, in that he failed to demonstrate that the Defendant possessed “constructive knowledge” of his uncompensated work hours, despite his allegations that Defendant’s managers instructed him to underreport his time. Id. 

In an earlier opinion in the same case, the Judge had dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for alleged unpaid commuting time. Kuebel v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43846 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2009)(commute time up to 60 minutes to and from varying job sites not compensable under FLSA).   There, the Court held that despite the fact that Plaintiff’s initial “commute” could be to any one of his six assigned stores, Black & Decker’s policy of designating the first hour of that commute as non-compensable commuting time did not violate the FLSA. The Court did not reach the question of whether the entire commute was non-compensable, as Black & Decker treated commuting time in excess of the first hour as compensable.

Kuebel demonstrates that it is possible for an employer to obtain summary judgment on a claim for alleged unrecorded unpaid work time even where that employee is a “field” employee not under the employer’s roof and immediate supervision. It is essential for all employers to ensure that their timekeeping policies comport with applicable federal and state law, expressly prohibit “off the clock” work and clearly and unequivocally advise employees to report all hours worked. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent decision, the Honorable Eileen Bransten of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, reinforced to all employers the need to utilized well-drafted commission agreements.  The court considered a claim from a real estate broker alleging that she was not paid commissions and bonuses for sales that she arranged, in violation of her agreement with the employer.   Rejecting her claim, the court pointed to express language in the parties’ agreement stating that the alleged commissions would only have been earned upon a closing and transfer for title, and stated that “parties to a brokerage agreement are free to add whatever conditions they may wish to their agreement, including a condition that the contract of sale actually be consummated before the broker is deemed to have earned his commission.” Root v Swig Equities, LLC, 2010 NY Slip Op 50843U at * 5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 10, 2010).   

The court then went further and, while recognizing the general principle that a “seller cannot avoid liability for a broker’s commission based on the non-occurrence of a condition precedent if the seller is responsible for its non-performance”, cited to existing case law and ruled that “[a] broker may choose to agree that even ‘if the sale falls through because of the seller’s fault, he shall be entitled to nothing.” Id.  The court then turned to the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid commissions under the New York Labor Law.   After stating that any Labor Law claim must be premised on a contractual right to recover commissions, the court rejected plaintiff’s labor law claim stating that “without a contractual right to the commissions [plaintiff] seeks to recover, she fails to state a violation of [the Labor Law].” Id. at * 7. 

This decision reinforces to employers the importance of well-drafted commission agreements with specific condition precedents for the earning of commissions.   In fact, in New York, written commission agreements are mandated and the lack of such an agreement not only limits an employer’s ability to defend a claim for unpaid commissions but also creates a presumption that the terms of employment that the commissioned salesperson has presented are the agreed terms of employment. N.Y. Labor Law § 191(1)(c).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As wage and hour litigation continues to be the majority of litigation in the workplace law arena, many employers are faced with defending federal and state law claims in the same federal court lawsuit.  This poses a practical issue as the FLSA provides for an opt-in class while state laws generally provide for opt-out classes.   Many members of the defense bar feel that allowing the actions to coexist in a federal case renders the opt-in process practically irrelevant.  Further, such dual actions often have the result of a minimal opt-in class and a large opt out class.

While district courts within the Second Circuit (which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont) have held that such claims can coexist in a federal court action, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on the issue. Such a ruling is expected in the near future as the Second Circuit recently agreed to consider a restaurant employer’s appeal of the district court’s decision allowing federal and state claims to proceed in a situation where only 22 of approximately 300 of the putative plaintiffs who comprise the state law opt-out class opted in to the FLSA action.  Shahriar et al. v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group Inc. et al., Second Circuit Case No. 10-477-mv (Order dated May 14, 2010). Courts within other Circuits are divided as to the appropriateness of the “hybrid” opt-in/opt-out lawsuit which permits such claims to coexist.  Compare De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 342 F.3d 301, 306 (3d Cir. 2003)(upholding refusal to certify 4,000+ member state law opt-out class in wage case with 447 potential opt-in participants) with Lindsay v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., 448 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(reversing denial of certification of state law claim in certified federal action and holding that dual actions are permissible).   

Should the Second Circuit rule that such claims cannot coexist in a federal court action, there may be a significant reduction in wage and hour actions initiated in federal court within the Circuit, as Plaintiffs’ counsel seek solely large opt-out state law classes in New York state courts.  However, such a finding and strategic shift could also have the effect of requiring employers to simultaneously defend parallel cases in federal and state court.  This site will keep you apprised of the Court’s decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When an independent contractor alleges s/he was misclassified and seeks alleged unpaid minimum wage and overtime, a significant issue is whether a prevailing plaintiff can receive a windfall.  Simply put, can an independent contractor alleging misclassification under the FLSA (or state law) keep fees for services already collected, and also collect a damages award for unpaid minimum wage and overtime?  In one recent decision, a federal judge has found the answer to be “not necessarily”.  Doe v. Cin-Lan, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16447 ( E.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2010)(Note: Jackson Lewis partner Allan Rubin represents Cin-Lan in this matter).

Cin-Lan concerns the classification of exotic dancers as independent contractors at a Michigan nightclub.  The named Plaintiff entered into an independent contractor arrangement under which she danced at the defendant club in exchange for a portion of “dance fees” collected from patrons; the balance of the dance fee went to the club.  The club did not pay Plaintiff minimum wage or overtime, though she often collected dance fees at a rate approaching $75/hour.  Significantly, the parties’ agreement called for the dance fees to serve as an offset to any wage liability if Plaintiff were ever found to be an employee. 

In rejecting Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim, the Court first rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the contract itself was “repugnant to the FLSA” and thus invalid.  The Court further observed that “the parties agreed that if there was ever a legal determination that their business relationship was in fact an employment relationship, then the alternative provisions of the [contract] would apply to define the parameters of that relationship. The counterclaim alleges that Doe agreed to such an arrangement” and therefore the Court declined to reject such an arrangement as a matter of law.  Finally, the Court rejected Plaintiff’s argument that all “dance fees” should be re-characterized as tips for purposes of the FLSA (and thus not credited against wages owed). 

While this decision is based on a very-specific fact pattern involving dancers in the nightclub industry, it highlights the importance and value of a well-drafted independent contractor agreement.  Even if such agreement does not support the independent contractor classification, potentially it can limit damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As previously reported in detail here, in November 2009 then-New York Commissioner of Labor Patricia Smith issued an Order accepting the 2009 Restaurant and Hotel Industry Wage Board’s recommendation to consolidate and modify the Wage Orders currently in effect covering New York restaurant and hotel industry employers. The Department however has yet to issue the proposed text of the consolidated Order which, if enacted, would both impose additional obligations on covered New York employers, as well as provide such employers with additional rights and protections, such as:

• Requiring employers to notify affected employees when taking a “tip credit” under the New York Labor Law (the “Labor Law”);
   
• Requiring an additional hour of pay to be provided to all non-exempt employees whose workday is over 10 hours  (the “spread of hours” requirement) regardless of the hourly wage earned by such employees;
   
• Permitting employers to mandate “tip pooling” under the Labor Law – at present, employers may mandate “tip sharing” (where a tipped employees shares his or her tips with supporting customarily tipped employees, such as busboys) but a tip pool, wherein all tips received are pooled and redistributed amongst customarily tipped employees, must be voluntarily; and
   
• Providing a “wash and wear” exemption to an employer’s obligation to provide a laundry cleaning allowance for mandated “uniforms.”

The Department of Labor’s next step is to submit the proposed Order to the State Register for a 45-day public comment period.

Given this uncompleted, mandatory legislative step, and the potential for public comment leading to further discussion and/or revision, it is unclear when a consolidated Order will take effect. However, it is likely that practices will not need be modified until at the earliest well into Summer 2010. We will continue to monitor the status of the Order and provide updates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Business owners, supervisors and managers performing services for corporate entities often believe that liability for wage and hour violations can be imposed solely on the incorporated entity.  To the contrary, as demonstrated by a recent New York Federal Court decision, various theories support individual liability under both federal and, in this case, New York State law.

In Flannigan v. Vulcan Power Group, L.L.C., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41751 at * 10-13 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2010), Judge Barbara Jones considered a motion to dismiss wage and hour claims brought against an officer/manager.In denying the motion, the court explained that corporate officers and principal shareholders, as well as supervisors and managers involved in wage and hour policymaking/decision-making, can be personally liable for unpaid wages under federal and state law.  Id. The Court cited Plaintiff’s allegations and documentary evidence to the effect that the individual defendant had met with her regarding the terms of her employment, and subsequently communicated with her about the status of her commission compensation, as sufficient to allege individual liability under the FLSA and New York law. Id. The court did however find that individual liability could not be imposed on the corporate shareholders under Section 630 of the New York Business Corporation Law because the defendant corporation was not incorporated in New York. Id.  Under BCL § 630, the ten largest shareholders of a closely held New York corporation are liable for unpaid wages and benefits.

Business owners (as well as supervisors and managers involved in wage and hour policymaking/decision-making) must recognize the various theories under which they can be subject to personal liability and of course take actions to minimize such potential liabilities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FLSA’s administrative exemption requires the party claiming exemption to establish that the employee was engaged in “administrative” work, as opposed to “production” work (the so-called administrative/production dichotomy). Determining whether an employee meets the administrative exemption can be challenging.   This determination is even more difficult in white-collar industries, where unlike in manufacturing, it is not so easy to differentiate between production and administrative work.

In 2009, the Second Circuit reversed a District Court and held an underwriter for Chase J.P. Morgan did not meet the administrative exemption since the employee “produced” the bank’s product, and did not service the business (like an accountant, Information Technology professional or human resources professional).   The Supreme Court yesterday declined to review the SecondCircuit’s decision.   Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529, 536 (2d Cir. 2009) cert denied 559 U.S. ___ (Supreme Court Case No. 09-1160, May 3, 2010). Therefore, in the Second Circuit white-collar employers need to evaluate the position in light of this decision before classifying employees as exempt administrators. This concern is underscored by the fact that the Second Circuit’s decision supports an argument that the exercise of independent discretion and judgment is not relevant to this analysis – if the employee is deemed to perform production work, a Court need not reach the question of the existence or lack of discretion and independent judgment.

This is a disappointing decision for employers hoping that the high court would grant cert and reverse Davis by holding that: 1) the District Court’s determination that the exemption applied in the case at bar was the proper one; and 2) the administrative/production dichotomy is of “limited assistance outside the manufacturing context.” Savage v. Unite Here, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32219 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2008).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

During the week of April 26, senior Labor Department officials discussed upcoming rules and initiatives. In a web chat, Nancy Leppink, deputy administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, stated that the agency will issue proposed rules covering numerous areas including companionship services, child labor and recordkeeping within the next 18 months.    The proposed recordkeeping rules are the most imminent and are expected in August.  Not surprisingly, these proposed rules will focus on the use/misuse of the independent contractor classification by employers.   Ms. Leppink indicated that the rules should "enhance awareness among workers of their status as employees or independent contractors" and may even require employers to explain to any contractor the basis for a contractor, non-employee classification.  In fact, a 2010 Regulatory Agenda Fact Sheet addressing the proposed recordkeeping regulations includes the following statement - "DOL is considering a proposed rule requiring covered employers to notify workers of their rights under the FLSA, and to provide information regarding hours worked and wage computation. Any employers that seek to exclude workers from the FLSA’s coverage will be required to perform a classification analysis, disclose that analysis to the worker, and retain that analysis to give to WHD enforcement personnel who might request it."  The Fact Sheet can be accessed via this link.

Ms. Leppink's comments mirror those of Deputy Labor Secretary Seth Harris.  At a conference, Mr. Harris discussed the DOL's "misclassification initiative", which encompasses various labor department agencies as well as the IRS and several state agencies.  Mr. Harris stated that the goal of the initiative is to ensure "employers will no longer be able to opt employees out" of statutory and regulatory protections.  

With an increasingly aggressive USDOL, employers must continue to take steps to ensure their practices, especially in regard to employee classification, comply with federal and, as applicable, state law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link