USDOL Revises Tip Credit Regulations, Leaves Others Unchanged

Following up on proposed regulations issued in 2008 for notice and comment, the U.S. Department of Labor issued final regulations last week, effective 30 days following publication in the Federal Register. These regulations address the issues below but other than in regard to use of the tip credit under Section 3(m), the changes to the text of the current regulations are minimal.

The final rule, consistent with the original proposed rulemaking, states that there is no maximum contribution percentage to valid mandatory tip pools, thus permitting employers to require tipped employees to pool their tips with other service personnel, without a hard cap restriction on the amount pooled.  The DOL previously has taken the position that a "customary and reasonable" maximum contribution meant 15 percent of an employee's tips. However, the rule also states that mandating an employee share his or her tips with a lawful tip pool is the only permissible use to which an employer can put an employee’s tips. This regulatory position contradicts the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Cumbie v. Woody Woo, Inc., 596 F.3d 577 (9th Cir. 2010). In Woody Woo, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an employee has no property right in his or her tips under the FLSA, unless the employer takes a tip credit pursuant to Section 3(m). The new rules also require advance notice of the employer’s use of the tip credit and how the employer calculates it.

In addition to these changes, the enacted regulations eliminated the “20 percent rule” applicable to employees engaged in fire protection activities. As the regulation creating such a rule – permitting fire protection employees to spend up to 20% of their time on non-exempt non-fire protection work – 29 C.F.R. § 553.212, had been superseded by an amended to Section 3 of the FLSA to define the term “employee in fire protection activities,” the DOL eliminated the rule as applied to such employees, consistent with case law interpreting the regulation in light of the new amendment. 

Disappointingly, the DOL declined to adopt regulations clarifying the rules relating to the fluctuating workweek method of overtime compensation and the payment of compensatory time off to public sector employee under Section 7(o) of the Act.

It is vital to note that the DOL’s preamble raises significant questions regarding the application of the fluctuating workweek method of overtime in certain situations. Employers who utilize this payment method should discuss these issues with counsel. 

Otherwise, the changes effected by the new rules are unlikely to be substantial. The hospitality industry should continue to monitor its tip practices closely under federal and state law.

Fourth Circuit Rules That Public School Employee Who Volunteered As Golf Coach Was Not Entitled To Minimum Wage Or Overtime

The FLSA limits when an individual can provide services to an organization without compensation. See post dated April 6, 2010 “We Don’t Have to Pay Our Interns – Do We?”  However, last month a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (including Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sitting by designation) re-confirmed one such circumstance, holding that a full-time public school employee who also voluntarily coached a golf program for a small stipend was a volunteer under the FLSA and not entitled to minimum wage or overtime pay. Purdham v. Fairfax County School Board, No. 10-1048, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4644 (4th Cir Mar. 10, 2011). Although the plaintiff alleged he worked 400-450 hours per year as a coach, because his regular, overtime-eligible position as a security assistant was not conditioned on his coaching position, he was considered a volunteer under the FLSA when performing services as golf coach.

The plaintiff proffered five arguments in support of his claim he was an employee entitled to minimum wage and overtime for coaching activities:

(1)   He subjectively considered himself an employee and not a volunteer;

(2)   The terms of his employment contract established that he was an employee and not a volunteer;

(3)   Defendant made a prior retroactive payment for overtime wages to all non-exempt employees who performed coaching duties;

(4)   Defendant provided paid administrative leave when coaching responsibilities conflicted with regular full-time work; and

(5)   Defendant paid a small stipend to coaches.

The court dismissed out-of-hand the plaintiff’s first two arguments, finding that plaintiff’s subjective views and the terms of his employment contract are not controlling. The court also found that the prior retroactive payment for overtime wages made to all non-exempt employees who performed coaching duties merely exhibited an “abundance of caution” on the part of the school district, especially in light of the extensive FLSA-related litigation occurring in other school districts at the time.  Similarly, paid administrative leave provided by the school district in order to allow coaches to perform their voluntary coaching responsibilities was found not to be prohibited under the FLSA, as such a rule would be inconsistent with the FLSA’s statutory goals.  Lastly, the court determined that the small stipend the plaintiff received was plainly permitted under controlling FLSA regulations, and as a result did not serve to defeat the volunteer work exemption in this instance. 

While volunteer public school coaches like the Plaintiff in Purdham may be considered volunteers in their coaching capacity, public employers must ensure that all requirements for a volunteer are satisfied (and that non-volunteer work is not performed during volunteer hours).  While a similar volunteer exemption applies in the private sector for non-profit organizations, the volunteer concept is not recognized in the for profit private sector. See 29 CFR § 553.101(a); DOL Op Ltr FLSA2008-3NA.

New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act: Expanded Coverage

Expanded Jackson Lewis coverage of New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act is now available here

 

NYSDOL Issues Wage Theft Act Forms Just Ahead of April 9 Effective Date

The New York State Department of Labor has provided model forms to comply with the Wage Theft Prevention Act.  Also included are instructions for completing the forms and  Guidelines for complying with the Act’s revisions to N.Y. Labor Law § 195.  The forms are not mandatory but any form utilized must incorporate the mandatory elements.  The forms will be provided in Chinese, Haitian-Creole, Korean, Polish, Russian, and Spanish, though it does not appear that all languages are available yet.  If the DOL has not provided a foreign language translation, the employer may use English only. Notably, the Guidelines do not require the form for exempt employees to identify the exemption under which the employee is classified.  The Act applies to all New York employers.