The substantive provisions of the FLSA protect covered non-exempt employees’ right to receive minimum wage and, as applicable, overtime pay.  The statute’s anti-retaliation provision is co-extensive: it protects employees from termination or other adverse employment action in response to complaints that those provisions were violated.  The FLSA however does not extend anti-retaliation protections to employees

Applying the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that firefighters are not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for time spent moving certain necessary gear to and from temporary work assignments at fire stations other than their

Applying California’s administrative exemption test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently concluded an insurance company properly classified its claims adjusters (who handled and processed disability claims) as exempt from the overtime provisions of the California Labor Code, notwithstanding the clerical duties the adjusters performed and their characterization of their work as

Two Circuit Courts have held service advisers are exempt “salesmen” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(10). But the Ninth Circuit thinks otherwise, deferring to USDOL guidance and finding the exemption inapplicable. Navarro v. Encino Motorcars, LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4773 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2015).

Encino Motorcars concerned the exemption applicable to

Counsel for wage-and-hour plaintiffs often argue – in settlement negotiations and in court – that the plaintiff’s burden under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 692 (1946), applicable if there are no records of hours worked, renders the employee’s recitation of events unassailable. This position misstates the law, as reflected in

The Supreme Court agreed today to hear a case involving application of the Portal-to-Portal Act to employees who claim they should be compensated for time spent undergoing security screenings used to prevent employee theft.  Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, Case No. 13-433.   The employees allege they were required to undergo security screenings to

In the latest in a series of decisions addressing the proper allocation of travel and immigration fee expenses between employers and employees utilizing the H2A agricultural guestworker program, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the largest federal circuit, encompassing Washington, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii) ruled an employer