Proposed Head of Wage and Hour Division Resubmitted to Congress

As previously discussed here, President Obama’s choice for administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is deputy assistant attorney general and chief of staff of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, Leon Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez was nominated on December 12, 2010, but Congress failed to act on his nomination prior to adjournment of its previous session. His nomination has now been resubmitted.

In addition to the FLSA, the Wage and Hour Division is responsible for enforcement of other federal statutes relating to wage-and-hour issues, including the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, which creates special wage protections for migrant workers, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. We will report further developments regarding Mr. Rodriguez’s nomination.  Mr. Rodriguez is expected to continue the Division’s aggressive enforcement programs.

DOL's Wage and Hour Division Announces Unprecedented Referral System

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, responsible for enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act, has announced a new collaboration with the American Bar Association. Under this initiative, FLSA or Family and Medical Leave Act complainants who are informed that the Division is declining to pursue their complaint are provided a toll-free number to contact a newly created, ABA-sanctioned Attorney Referral System.  The Division has also pledged to provide prompt, relevant information and documents on the referred case to complainants and the referral attorney electing to take the case.  

This aggressive, previously-uncontemplated enforcement technique dovetails with the recent announcement that Leon Rodriguez, the current Chief of Staff of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and a former state and federal prosecutor, is President Obama’s new Wage Hour Administrator Designate. The Wage and Hour Administrator is the President’s top wage-and-hour enforcement official. 

Jackson Lewis Attends Wage and Hour Division Public Forum Articulating DOL Enforcement Agenda

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.

 

Time to Eat? Health Care Employers Should Make Sure There Is

Over the past year or so, employers in the health care industry, particularly in the Northeast, have been – and continue to be – targeted in a number of lawsuits alleging improper payment of hours worked by their hourly employees. Specifically, these lawsuits allege that certain health care facilities automatically deducted time for meal breaks, even when an employee worked through the meal period. Several of the lawsuits also include claims for unpaid pre- and post-shift work, as well as unpaid training time. The lawsuits seek back wages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and liquidated (double) damages.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), most employees must be paid at least the minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) for all hours worked and must be paid one-and-one-half times the “regular rate of pay” for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Under the FLSA, bona fide meal periods do not count as “hours worked.” Ordinarily, 30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period, although meal periods of less than 30 minutes in which the employee is completely relieved from duty for the purpose of eating may be bona fide under certain conditions. Factors to be considered in determining whether a meal period is bona fide include, among others, whether the employees have sufficient time to eat a regular meal, whether there are work-related interruptions to the meal period, and whether the employees have agreed to the shorter period. Meal periods of less than 20 minutes should be especially scrutinized to ensure that the time is sufficient to eat a regular meal under the circumstances.

Many employers automatically deduct a 30-minute lunch period from an employee’s total daily time worked. Typically, such deductions are made unless the employee notifies the employer that he or she did not take a 30-minute lunch period that day. This practice generally is permissible under the FLSA, provided that the employer accurately records actual hours worked, including any work performed during the lunch period (and accurately compensates the employee for the actual hours worked).

The lawsuits claim that the employers made automatic deductions for meal periods, but the employees were not able to take their full meal periods, thereby making the meal periods compensable working time (i.e., “hours worked” under the FLSA). Failure to account for or compensate for hours worked, even in small increments, may result in minimum wage and/or overtime violations. When spread across all employees subject to an automatic deduction, such violations have the ability to add up quickly.

The lawsuits have thus far been limited to the Northeast. At least one law firm, however, has sent letters to numerous hourly-paid health care workers, and its web site indicates pending “investigations” of health care employers in all 50 states. Several of the lawsuits include claims under the FLSA, ERISA, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and name senior officials and managers as individual defendants.

In addition to private litigation, health care employers must also contend with increased enforcement by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which has hired several hundred additional investigators to look into potential wage and hour violations, particularly in low-wage industries. The health care industry has traditionally been a targeted industry for federal wage and hour enforcement.

Given the increased focus, employers in the health care industry should examine their payroll policies and practices to ensure compliance with federal and state wage and hour laws. In particular, employers using automatic deductions for meal periods should reconsider whether the automatic deduction is necessary to achieving the goals for which it was implemented. If not, the employer should consider doing away with the automatic deduction. If so, the employer should take steps to make sure that employees are aware of the method by which they can report exceptions to the automatic deduction, and that they, in fact, do so when they are unable to take their full meal period.

State laws may place additional obligations and restrictions on employers, such as increasing the period of time for which back wages can be recovered, further limiting the ability of an employer to deduct for meal periods, or providing for treble damages.

Wage and Hour Nominee Withdraws

As reported previously, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has been staffing up in anticipation of more aggressive enforcement. Who will lead those enforcement efforts has recently come into question with the revelation that the Obama Administration’s nominee for Wage and Hour Administrator, Lorelei Boylan, has withdrawn from consideration for the post.

Coupled with the difficulties faced by Solicitor nominee Patricia Smith, who has a hold placed on her nomination by Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi, the Department lacks confirmed leaders in two of the most significant positions for wage and hour enforcement. Exactly what effect this absence might have on the enforcement efforts of the agency remains to be seen.

 

We will continue to post developments regarding the nomination and confirmation process for these two key positions.

 

UPDATED:  The official White House press release announcing the withdrawal of Ms. Boylan's nomination can be found here.

Increased Enforcement at DOL

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Melanie Trottman notes that the U.S. Department of Labor has started shifting its focus towards what has long been assumed would be the case:

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has spent her first few months in office focusing on handing out $46 billion in stimulus money. Now, her department is adding staff and signaling it will soon begin putting in practice the more assertive regulation of business she promised early in her tenure.

Ms. Solis has begun hiring 670 new investigators to enforce labor regulations.

Among the new hires will be some 250 additional enforcement personnel in the Department’s Wage and Hour Division, an increase of 33%. 

The Department's more aggressive enforcement stance, coupled with an increased number of investigators, places employers of all sizes in jeopardy. 

Employers should review their practices and policies now to address possible wage and hour violations in advance of a federal investigation. Investigations by WHD can lead to the payment of back wages, liquidated (double) damages, civil monetary penalties, and, in the case of government contracts, can also lead to debarment from future government contracts. 

Federal Minimum Wage Increase

On July 24, 2009, the final stage of the three-phase minimum wage increase contained in the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 goes into effect. Employees covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act must now be paid no less than $7.25 per hour. A revised minimum wage poster has been prepared by the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.

Employers should take this opportunity to ensure that they have the required notices properly posted in their facility.  In addition, employers should review their payroll systems to ensure that appropriate rates are being paid, particularly in the case of employees being compensated on piece rate, shift rate, or daily rate, or employees for whom the employer takes a tip credit.