While an employee must be paid for all hours worked under the FLSA, time which is “de minimis” may, depending on the circumstances, not be considered compensable “work.” Compensable “work” also does not include periods where the employer did not “suffer or permit” the employee to perform work. A federal judge in Florida recently invoked these concepts

An employer’s failure to maintain proper records of hours worked by non-exempt employees results in an evidentiary burden shift in overtime cases. Rather than being entitled to rely on properly maintained records, the employer must rebut the employee’s claim of unpaid overtime provided the plaintiff supports his case with testimony leading to a “just and

The proliferation of FLSA lawsuits brought by “non-exempt” employees for alleged uncompensated working time has highlighted several important FLSA questions. One prominent and thorny question concerns when and how an employer is deemed to have constructive knowledge of work allegedly performed by an employee, such that the employer will be deemed to have “suffered or permitted&rdquo

In this post, we discussed two different courts’ analyses of hospital plaintiffs’ attempts to seek conditional certification of their claims that they were not paid for allegedly working meal periods due to the employers’ use of an auto-deduct for meal periods. In an opinion addressing such a claim on the merits (as opposed to the

Wage and hour plaintiffs, like all plaintiffs, seek recovery from the largest, most viable defendants. Often, employees who separate from failing businesses seek to broaden the scope of the concept of “employer” within the meaning of wage-hour laws and include as defendants other potentially-liable parties with “deep pockets.” As discussed here, a federal court in Pennsylvania