As the volume of FLSA litigation remains high, an impediment to resolving such cases (even where the underlying claimant’s wage claim already has been resolved) is the issue of the appropriate fee to be paid to counsel representing the worker pursuant to the fee shifting provision of the FLSA and/or applicable state labor law. 

California’s Supreme Court has again spoken on meal and rest period litigation, this time holding neither employers nor employees may recover their attorney’s fees in cases requiring employers to provide meal breaks and rest breaks. In the wake of its highly publicized Brinker Restaurant Corporation decision, where the Supreme Court ruled California law requires employers

One oft-invoked disincentive to employers’ litigating FLSA claims (specifically non-class or collective claims) is the statute’s fee shifting provision: when a plaintiff prevails (however nominally), he is entitled to have his “reasonable” attorneys’ fees paid by the employer defendant (however the principle does not apply to a defense victory). In such cases, the individual plaintiff’s damages may

Separated executives often assert wage claims following cessation of employment and big dollars are usually at issue. Important questions then arise, including principally: 1) whether the executive can assert a claim under the New York Labor Law; and, 2) just as importantly, who is responsible for any monies owed. A new decision issued by recently-appointed Judge Paul

As recently discussed here¸ a properly drafted commission agreement is essential in New York (and every state) to minimize exposure to a variety of claims, including claims for alleged unpaid commissions and improper wage deductions. In fact, in New York and other states, a written signed commission agreement is required pursuant to state law