This blog has stressed (most recently here and here) the importance of carefully drafting incentive compensations plans to avoid unintentionally converting incentive compensation into earned “wages” protected under state law.   Another recent decision, this one from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reinforces the employer benefits of careful drafting. Lawson v. Sun

In one of the most comprehensive circuit court opinions to address application of Section 207(i) of the FLSA—the provision of the law that allows employers to comply with the overtime provisions of the FLSA by paying commissioned employees of a retail or service establishment at least 1.5 times the minimum wage, instead of their regular

While the FLSA’s “suffer or permit” standard is broad, it is not without limit.  Building on a prior decision, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed several purported justifications for imputing knowledge of alleged additional work asserted by a construction employee and rejected claims of alleged unpaid wages asserted by the former

Continuing its line of common sense interpretations of the administrative exemption, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that an insurance company employee tasked with maintaining an in-depth understanding of particular insurance products and training sales staff on those products was an administratively exempt employee.  Blanchar v. Std. Ins. Co.

While the pharmaceutical industry is focused on the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Christopher, as to whether the work performed by pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) for GlaxoSmithKline qualified for the outside sales exemption, another circuit court has weighed in on the duties of PSRs and their FLSA status in the context of the administrative

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