Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300, consolidating them for argument. The three cases present the question whether class action

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to resolve the current split among the Circuit Courts regarding whether “service advisors” are exempt from overtime under the 213(b)(10) exemption, an exemption applicable to any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic” who is primarily engaged in “selling or servicing automobiles.” Both the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have held

Cases challenging the independent contractor status of certain service providers under the wage-and-hour laws are likely to continue in the near future due to the difficulties in applying the law to complex factual patterns. The Department of Labor recently provided additional guidance for determining contractor status in the form of an Administrator’s Interpretation (and the

Reversing the D.C. Circuit’s 2013 opinion, the Supreme Court today held that the U.S. Department of Labor did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when, in 2010, it issued its Administrator’s Interpretation stating that mortgage loan officers generally do not qualify for the administrative exemption without first affording the public the opportunity for

Unanimously reversing the Ninth Circuit, today the U.S. Supreme Court held that time spent by warehouse workers undergoing security screenings was non-compensable because it did not constitute a “principal activity,” nor was it “integral and indispensable” to the workers’ other principal activities.  Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13–433 (Dec. 9, 2014).

The

Presumably ending the long-running litigation regarding whether certain Massachusetts skycaps’ common law claims challenging the imposition of a $2 curbside baggage handling fee that allegedly caused a reduction in tips are preempted, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of the First Circuit’s 2013 decision finding those claims preempted by the Airline

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

Building on its prior rulings in so-called “donning and doffing” cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 decision holding that the donning of certain protective gear qualifies as “changing clothes” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(o), and thus is susceptible to exclusion from the hours worked calculation under the terms