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

The “salary basis” test is by far the most straightforward component of the white collar overtime exemptions, requiring only a fixed salary of $455/week (subject to state law) paid in compliance with the requirements of 29 CFR § 541.602. However, an employer’s use of an unusual compensation or bonus structure can still result in allegations that this requirement is not met. Such claims can arise even when the weekly payment in question far exceeds the minimum salary requirement. This was the nature of the Plaintiffs’ unsuccessful attempt to assert that the employer failed to satisfy the salary basis requirement in Bell v. Callaway, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2010).[1]

In Callaway, the employer hired approximately 100 “bookkeeper/accountants” to assist Callaway in the restatement of a single company’s books (HealthSouth). Their compensation arrangement is summarized below:

Plaintiffs received a guaranteed weekly salary of $1600 or more that did not depend  on the quality or quantity of the work performed. This weekly salary was reduced by one-fifth of the weekly salary for every full day a Plaintiff took off from work for personal reasons during the normal workweek without substituting Paid Time Off ("PTO") [Ed.: a lawful deduction under 541.602]. But, a Plaintiff could work fewer than eight hours during any given workday without any reduction in his or her weekly salary. Second, Plaintiffs were eligible to receive additional incentive compensation (a "bonus") paid at a straight-time hourly rate based on the cumulative number of billable hours that Plaintiffs worked. Any bonus to be awarded was determined based on how many additional hours over forty a Plaintiff worked in a given week minus any "deficit" hours a Plaintiff had accumulated in past weeks. For example, if a Plaintiff worked seven and not eight hours on each regularly-scheduled workday in a given week, thus totaling 35 hours of work, he or she still earned the full predetermined weekly salary, but would not earn a bonus in a subsequent week until he or she made up the bonus-hour deficit of five hours and then worked more than 40 hours in a given week.

Id. at * 1-2. 

The Eleventh Circuit, affirming the district court, rejected Plaintiffs’ claim that they were “not paid on a salary basis because the amount of their bonuses fluctuated based on the cumulative number of hours worked.” Id. at * 4. The Court noted the DOL’s regulation which allows an employer to “provide an exempt employee with additional compensation without losing the exemption or violating the salary basis requirement, if the employment arrangement also includes a guarantee of at least the minimum weekly-required amount paid on a salary basis.” Id. at * 5 citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(a). Because the salary basis was met, exempt status was preserved, and the additional compensation was of no moment. The fact that the bonus was based on hours worked and subject to adjustment based on hours worked was irrelevant to the court’s analysis of salary basis compliance.

While Callaway is in line with other Circuit decisions addressing similar plans (See e.g. Havey v. Homebound Mortg., Inc., 547 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008)(the fact that [plaintiff’s] overall compensation for quarter could be decreased due to quality errors does not render [plaintiff] a non-salaried employee if, under the employer's policy, the adjustments do not affect a "predetermined amount" [compliant with the salary basis test]), employers devising exempt compensation plans must beware of compensation arrangements that could result in assertions that rather than applying a proper FLSA exemption, they are attempting to circumvent the Act’s overtime requirement. See generallyAdams v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 143 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1998).

This decision points out the need for all employers to ensure that compensation programs for white collar-exempt employees are in full compliance with the salary basis requirements of the FLSA. 

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

The subject of many FLSA actions is store managers and whether they are properly classified as exempt employees. In a recent victory for the employer community, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York held as a matter of law that Express Mart properly classified its store manager in Cato, New York as exempt. Guinup v. Petr-All Petroleum Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86280 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 23, 2010).

Plaintiff Guinup was the store manager for Store 360, a combination convenience store and gas station. In her claim for overtime, she did not dispute that three of the four requirements for the executive exemption were met: namely, that she; 1) was paid on a salary basis and earned at least $455 per week; 2) customarily and regularly directed the work of two or more employees; and 3) had the authority to hire or fire employee or in the alternative make recommendations as to hiring and firing which received particular weight. Id. at * 17-18. Rather, Plaintiff argued that as a store manager she did not meet the requirement that her “primary duty [be] management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof.” Id. citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.100. 

The Court then reviewed the four factors utilized to determine whether an employee’s primary duty is management: “[1] the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; [2] the amount of time spent performing exempt work; [3] the employee's relative freedom from direct supervision; and [4] the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.” Id. In holding that each factor militated in favor of exempt status  the Court observed that Plaintiff’s duties included:

interviewing and hiring new employees, scheduling, training, writing performance evaluations, reporting employee and customer injuries to corporate, discussing sales performance and promotions with corporate, conducting surveys of competitors' gas prices and convenience store business, and controlling "shrink." Plaintiff was also responsible for making recommendations to corporate regarding product ordering and pricing, new hire pay rates, employee discipline and termination, and certain Store 360 security measures. Furthermore, Plaintiff accepted phone calls at home from her subordinates at Store 360 regarding incidents that arose at Store 360 when she was not working.

Id. at * 21. 

Based on these duties, the Court observed that “Store 360 could not have operated successfully unless Plaintiff performed her managerial functions.” As the most senior on-site employee, the Court found she was relatively free from supervision on a day-to-day basis even if she had an “active” Area Supervisor because, inter alia, the Area Supervisor was responsible for ten stores. Finally, based on the Court’s estimate of the compensation of Plaintiff’s assistant manager, Plaintiff was paid approximately 31.7% more than that employee, her highest-ranking subordinate.

While the Guinup decision is favorable to employers, the applicability of the executive exemption continues to be a fact-sensitive, highly technical analysis with divergent court opinions. Whenever a managerial employee is not the highest ranking on-site employee (as Guinup was), particular care must be taken in assessing applicability of the exemption.  And even if the employee is the highest rank on-site there must be significant exercise of managerial duties. All retail employers must focus on this issue.

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

As analyzed in more detail  here, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that the California labor code provision prohibiting employers from taking or sharing in tips left for employees by customers – Cal. Lab. Code § 351 (“Section 351”) – does not provide  private litigants with a right to sue their employers directly for alleged misappropriation of tips. Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., No. S171442 (Aug. 9, 2010). 

In Lu, the defendant casino required card dealers to segregate 15 to 20 percent of their tips, which the casino deposited into a tip pool account for distribution to designated employees who provide services to customers.  Employees who received these segregated tips included chip runners, poker tournament coordinators, poker retention coordinators, hosts, customer service representatives, and concierges.  

The California Supreme Court took up Lu, after both the trial and first appellate court held that Plaintiff Lu had no private right to sue under Section 351, to settle a conflict with another intermediate appellate court which held that a private right of action existed under Section 351. See Grodensky v. Artichoke Joe’s Casino. The court addressed the limited question of whether Section 351 created a private right of action for employees.  Without ruling on the legality of the defendant’s tip pool policy, the Court found no private right of action for employees under Section 351, either explicitly or implicitly. However, the Court observed that employees can still pursue Section 351 relief through the Labor Commissioner, or sue for allegedly misappropriated tips under common law or other statutory theories.

Employers should continue to draft and administer their tip pooling policies carefully, in light of federal and state laws and regulations. This point is underscored by the fact that the FLSA provides a private right of action and 100% liquidated damages plus loss of any taken tip credit for misappropriated gratuities.

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

The FLSA requires that employers pay employees for all work time, as well as for any time that the employee is “engaged to wait.”  An employee is “engaged to wait” when the employee is idle, but is constrained with respect to engaging in personal activities. Thus, the employee’s time is deemed to be “for the benefit” of the employer.  Examples may include time spent waiting to respond to on-site incidents, monitoring a work location, or maintaining a presence in a particular area for public safety reasons,. When the employee is deemed free to pursue personal interests, the employee is “waiting to engage”, and need not be compensated. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa recently issued a decision analyzing and applying the  “engaged to wait” concept to lunch breaks in regard to security employees required to remain on-premises and on-call during their meal period.

Aiken v. Catholic Health Initiatives, No. 4:07-cv-018, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79782 (S.D. Iowa 2010), concerned private security guards who worked on the premises of defendant’s hospitals.   The security guards were  allotted 30 minute unpaid meal breaks pursuant to defendant’s written policy and practice. However for the duration of this break they were required to: (1) remain on-premises; (2) carry their hospital radios;, and (3) respond to any incidents or assignments in the hospital, should they arise. If a security guard was unable to take a full thirty-minute meal break during his/her shift due to an incident, the employee was instructed to notify their supervisor so that they could be paid for the entire thirty-minute period. The security guards sought compensation for these unpaid meal periods under the FLSA

The court held that the security guards were not “engaged to wait” during this time, but rather were free to pursue personal interests, such as making personal calls, playing card games, and surfing the Internet, and therefore their meal breaks were not compensable. Although the court acknowledged that the employer derived some benefit from the security guards’ “deterrence value” when they remained on premises—especially considering that each hospital had only one security guard per shift—it nonetheless found that the “predominant benefit” of the meal break fell to the employees themselves. 

Interestingly, the security guards argued that they were free to pursue personal activities during extensive “down time” during their compensable work hours, and therefore the activities pursued during “working time” and during the meal breaks were indistinguishable and, thus, equally compensable. The court flatly rejected this argument, finding such time was plainly not work, even if the employer chose to compensate for such personal time during the actual workday. 

In rejecting Plaintiffs’ claims and holding that neither 1) the potential to have to perform work nor 2) the actual performance of work on an occasional basis converted all meals breaks to compensable time, the court did note that if the security guards’ meal breaks were interrupted with a high level of frequency then the meal breaks could potentially be considered working time. However, the interruptions here were too infrequent to rise to that level, and regardless employees were paid whenever they notified their supervisors of a meal break interruption,. 

Employers who wish to require employees to remain on-call during meal periods must be cautious of state laws and ensure that any such on-call time does not regularly restrict employees from engaging in personal activities.

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

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay non-exempt employees one and one half times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in a workweek in excess of 40. United States Department of Labor regulations, as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(a), allow an employer to utilize the fluctuating workweek (“FWW”) method of overtime payment. Pursuant to FWW, in determining overtime due, an employer divides the weekly wage by the total number of hours worked during the week and then pays additional half-time for overtime hours. The more overtime hours worked, the lower the regular rate of pay and the overtime due for each overtime hour. 

One would think that if a salaried employee is found to have been misclassified as non-exempt, this same formula should be applied in determining any overtime due. However, while the federal appellate courts have applies such formula, some district courts have taken the position that any overtime must be calculated by dividing the salary by 40 to determine the regular rate and paying 1.5 times the regular rate for all overtime hours. The difference in calculations can be significant as demonstrated by the following examples.

SALARY: $1,000

HOURS WORKED: 50

Half-time calculation (FWW): $1000/50 hours = $20/hour regular rate of pay/2 = $10 times 10 overtime hours -=$100 due

Time-and-a-half calculation: $1000/40 hours = $25/hour regular rate of pay X 1.5 = $37.50 times 10 overtime hours = $375 due

The difference between the amounts of overtime due under these two calculation methods is always at least three-fold. As the number of hours in the workweek increases, the spread between the two methods grows.

Earlier this week, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit endorsed the first FWW-type calculation. See Urnikis-Negro v. Am. Family Prop. Servs., — F.3d. —, No. 08-3117, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 16126 (7th Cir. 2010).  In finding this method of overtime calculation appropriate, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the parties “had a ‘clear and mutual understanding’ that [the employee’s] weekly salary of $1,000 was meant to compensate her for however many hours she worked, not 40 or some other number.”  Id. at *18.  Notably, in reaching this conclusion, the Seventh Circuit referred to an article published by Jackson Lewis partner Paul DeCamp (head of the Firm’s Wage and Hour Practice Group and former Wage and Hour Administrator for the United States Department of Labor) and associate Jacqueline C. Tully, Half-Time or Time and a Half? Calculating Overtime in Misclassification Cases, 278 Fair Lab. Stds. Handbook for States, Local Gov’t & Sch. Newsl. 3 (Nov. 2008). The Court specifically relied on this article for the proposition that the “proper focus in calculating [the] regular rate of pay for [a] misclassified employee is on whether [the] parties intended [a] fixed salary to compensate [an] employee for all hours worked in [a] work-week or solely for [the] first 40 hours.”  Id. at *45. 

The employee argued that “use of the more employer-friendly FWW method gives employers an incentive to misclassify employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements or otherwise withhold overtime pay, as they will be little the worse off if and when sued to enforce the statute’s requirements.”  Id. at *55.  In response, the Seventh Circuit stated that the district court awarded liquidated damages, attorney’s fees and costs to the employee, thereby causing the employer to endure penalties for miscategorizing her as an exempt employee.

As with many other wage and hour issues, courts have not been fully consistent even when determining the regular rate is based on salary divided by total hours worked. Some courts have taken the position that time and a half the regular rate is due for all hours over 40 and not just additional half time. Further confusing the issue, some of these courts divide the salary by 40 hours to determine the regular rate, while others still use the total hours worked. These calculations are not supported by regulation but generally based on the court’s view of the equities. 

While this issue may ultimately need to be resolved by the Supreme Court, this is a helpful decision for employers, especially those within the Seventh Circuit. It also reminds employers to reiterate to all salaried employees that their salary covers all hours worked. The Court’s reference to the article published by Jackson Lewis attorneys also demonstrates that the Firm is at the forefront of legal analysis and theory in the wage and hour arena, the forum that continues to pose the highest level of risk related to workplace compliance.

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

As discussed here, the FLSA contains a provision relating to the compensability of time spent donning and doffing uniforms, when the compensability of such time is addressed in a collective bargaining agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). However, even where a unionized employer through a collective bargaining agreement is not required to pay for such time, if the time is otherwise compensable under state law, the FLSA is no defense, held Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit this week. Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15960 (7th Cir. Wis. Aug. 2, 2010).

Spoerle concerns the compensability of time spent putting on and taking off “safety gear, such as steel-toed boots and hard hats, plus a smock that keeps other garments clean” as well as hair nets and beard nets” at an Oscar Mayer plant in Wisconsin. Id. at * 2. The Court noted that it “takes a few minutes at the start of every day to put these items on, and a few more at day's end to take them off.” Id. Kraft Foods and the union agreed that this time is not compensable. Id. at * 2-3. However, Kraft Foods also conceded within the context of Spoerle that, but for the existence of a CBA, the time in question would be compensable under Wisconsin’s state wage law. 

As observed by the district court and reiterated by the Seventh Circuit, 29 U.S.C. § 218(a) of the FLSA states:

No provision of this chapter . . . shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximum workweek established under this chapter …. No provision of this chapter shall justify any employer in reducing a wage paid by him which is in excess of the applicable minimum wage under this chapter, or justify any employer in increasing hours of employment maintained by him which are shorter than the maximum hours applicable under this chapter.

This provision codifies an unequivocal proposition: the FLSA does not prevent states from enacting wage laws which provide greater rights to employees. The Court also specifically noted that 203(o) by its plain language is limited to calculating hours worked “for the purposes of sections 206 and 207 of this title.” Id. at * 5. Finally, as explained by the Court, the existence of the CBA did not itself preempt the state wage law because state rules that disregard, rather than interpret, collective bargaining agreements are not preempted by federal labor policy. Id. citing Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988).

Spoerle highlights the need for every organization to develop a full and complete understanding of both the FLSA and all relevant state wage and hour laws. Employers with multi-state operations must be particularly careful to mind the niceties of individual state laws.

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