The Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Long Island Care at Home v. Coke, confirmed that the companionship exemption to minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA applies to individuals employed by third party agencies who provide companionship services in a private home. Regulations limit this exemption to companions who do not spend more than 20%

To qualify for the administrative exemption, DOL regulations require that an “executive assistant or administrative assistant to a business owner or senior executive of a large business “ perform his or her duties “without specific instructions or prescribed procedures” and that he or she be “delegated authority regarding matters of significance.” 29 CFR § 541.203(d). If

At the intersection of wage-and-hour and maritime law are the FLSA’s “seaman” exemptions: the exemption from minimum wage and overtime codified at 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(12) and the overtime exemption codified at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(6). These exemptions often are confused or collapsed with the definition of a “seaman” for purposes of the Jones Act, separate federal legislation

In an effort to counteract proposed USDOL rulemaking seeking to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Long Island Care at Home v. Coke, in which the Court upheld the exemption’s historic application to individuals employed by third party agencies who provide health care services in a private home (Long Island Care at Home, Ltd.

General practitioners and non-attorneys may or may not be aware that the applicability of the FLSA’s overtime provision to various aspects of a business is not always uniform across the “establishment.” This is because the FLSA’s implementing regulations contemplate multiple distinct “establishments” even within the same physical premises. 29 C.F.R. § 779.305.Two new District Court decisions highlight

Applicability of various FLSA white collar exemptions to workers in the information technology sector continues to be a detailed and difficult analysis, in part due to the Department of Labor’s rules regarding the “computer professional” exemption, which have failed to keep up with the  rapidly evolving workforce in the technology sector of the economy. The computer

In a decision with broad implications within and, potentially, outside the pharmaceutical industry, the Supreme Court has affirmed, by a 5-4 margin, the Ninth Circuit’s decision finding GlaxoSmithKline’s pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify for the outside sales exemption under the FLSA.  Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 11–204 (June 18, 2012).  Justice Alito delivered