fair labor standards act

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, covered employers must pay non-exempt employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek. To comply, while employers must define the workweek, they retain the flexibility to do so as they see fit, as demonstrated by venerable Brooklyn-based federal Judge Jack Weinstein in a new

Chief Justice Roberts’ denial of the Home Care Association of America’s request for stay of issuance of mandate confirms that the new rule rendering many home health aides overtime-eligible is effective, pending appeal. In response to that denial, Wage-and-Hour Administrator David Weil issued a new policy statement confirming that the Department’s “non-enforcement period” for the

Fixed payments made on other than an hourly basis to non-exempt (i.e., overtime eligible) workers often must be included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime.  One type of payment that may be excluded from the regular rate calculation is payment for “reasonable payments for travel expenses, or other

Joining decisions from other parts of the country, a California federal judge has held that former cosmetology and “hair design” students were not “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act or the wage-and-hour laws of California and Nevada entitled to minimum wage. Benjamin v. B & H Education, Inc., et al., 2015 U.S.

The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts “employee[s] employed in agriculture” from its overtime requirement. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied this exemption to the operations of an employer who “moved to the United States from his native France in 1992 to grow worms,” and affirmed the district court’s decision holding that

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit last week adopted the Second Circuit’s “primary beneficiary” test as the appropriate test for determining whether an unpaid clinical intern was truly an “employee” within the meaning of the FLSA. Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia, P.A., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16194 (11th Cir. 2015).

In rejecting the

Attempting to provide clarity to a subject that is a regular source of litigation, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued an extended, detailed analysis addressing the circumstances under which an employee’s position is “customarily and regularly” tipped for purposes of participating in a valid tip pool under 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).