CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Department of Labor’

80/20 Hindsight: The DOL Issues Opinion Letter That Concludes The 80/20 Side Work Rule For Tipped Employees No Longer Applies

Posted on: November 15th, 2018

By: Michael Hill

Navigating the laws for paying tipped employees just got a little easier. In a new opinion letter, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) effectively nullified the “80/20 Rule,” which divided courts throughout the country and became the anchor point for several collective and class actions against employers of tipped employees.

While the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, employers of tipped employees, such as waiters, bartenders, and bellhops, are permitted to pay such employees $2.13/hour and take a “tip credit” for the difference between this wage and the federal minimum wage (provided the employees receive notice and the tip credit does not exceed what they actually earn in tips).

The DOL’s 80/20 Rule acknowledged the fact that tipped employees may spend some time performing tasks that do not generate tips. Servers in a restaurant, for example, generally spend time performing “side work” that is incidental but related to serving customers, such as rolling silverware, making coffee, cleaning tables, or sweeping the dining room floor, in addition to waiting tables. Under the 80/20 Rule, an employer still could claim a tip credit for all of such an employee’s time, as long as the employee did not spend more than 20% of his or her time performing “general preparation work or maintenance.”

Strict application of the 80/20 Rule essentially meant employers of tipped employees were expected to monitor each and every task their employees performed and to maintain meticulous time logs accounting for each individual task. Some courts recognized this was infeasible, while others held this to be what the law required. The tide of litigation rolled in, with predictable swearing contests over whether servers and bartenders spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tip-generating tasks.

The DOL now, however, has recognized the confusion its 80/20 Rule generated and clarified that employers may take the tip credit for all of their tipped employees time, no matter how much time is spent on related “side work” tasks, so long as these side tasks are performed contemporaneously with the employees’ customer-service duties or within a reasonable time immediately beforehand or afterwards and the tasks are listed for that job position in the Occupational Information Network (O*NET).

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Michael Hill at [email protected].

 

Is Wellness Activity Participation Compensable?

Posted on: September 25th, 2018

By: Joyce Mocek

The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an opinion letter on whether employees must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for the time they spend participating in wellness activities.   In this inquiry, the employer advised the DOL that it allowed its employees to participate in wellness programs including “biometric screening,” (ie cholesterol levels, blood pressure and nicotine usage screening), during and outside of regular work hours.  The screening information could result in a decrease in the employee’s health insurance deductible.  The screening was not related to the employee’s job, there were no restrictions on the time an employee could participate in the events, and participation was not required by the employer.

In its opinion letter, the DOL noted the employer received no financial benefit as a result of the employee participation in the activities, and the employee’s voluntary participation predominantly benefited the employee.  The employer did not require the employee to perform any job related duties while they were participating in the activities.  Thus, since the activities predominantly benefited the employee, the DOL opined that the time the employees spent participating in the wellness program did not constitute worktime under the FLSA.  Further, since the employee was relieved of all duties, and not restricted in the amount of time they could participate in the activities, the time spent was considered non-compensable “off  duty” time.

Employers with wellness programs should review their policies concerning such programs, to ensure they follow the guidance recently outlined by the DOL in this opinion letter to avoid potential FLSA issues.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Joyce Mocek at [email protected].

Here’s Your Tip Of The Day – Another Appellate Court Defers To DOL On Use Of 80/20 Rule For Tipped Employees

Posted on: September 24th, 2018

By: Brad Adler & Koty Newman

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Marsh v. J. Alexander’s, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26387 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2018) is important for employers trying to navigate the FLSA and pay their tipped employees the correct amount.  The Ninth Circuit has joined the Eighth Circuit in deciding that the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) dual jobs regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e) (a/k/a “80/20 rule”), and its interpretation found in the Wage and Hour Division’s Field Operations Handbook are entitled to judicial deference.  This affects what employers must pay their tipped employees in these jurisdictions.

Generally, the federal hourly minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  However, employers may legally pay their employees in tipped occupations, under federal law, as little as $2.13 per hour.  This is due to the FLSA’s tip credit provision, which permits employers to take a tip credit for employees in tipped occupations, such as serving or bartending.  The tip credit offsets the employer’s duty to pay the minimum wage to their tipped employees.  Even so, when a server’s tipped wages come up short of the hourly minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, the employer has a duty to make up the difference.

But how much is an employer required to pay an employee when that that employee performs some tipped duties and some untipped duties?  With the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision, the wages that an employer must pay an employee who receives tips turns upon whether the employee’s untipped duties are related to the employee’s tipped duties, and how long the employee spends performing each of those duties.

In the case before the Ninth Circuit, Alec Marsh and thirteen other former servers and bartenders challenged their employer’s payment practices under the FLSA.  Plaintiffs alleged that their employers abused the FLSA’s tip credit provision in two ways.  Plaintiffs alleged that employers violated the provision by treating them as tipped employees when they performed work that was unrelated to serving or bartending, such as when they cleaned restrooms or washed windows. Further, plaintiffs alleged that it was a violation for their employers to treat them as tipped employees when they performed untipped tasks related to serving and bartending, such as filling salt and pepper shakers, when those tasks consumed an excess of twenty percent of their time worked during the workweek.

In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the alleged payment practices of plaintiffs’ employers – in essence, crediting an employee’s tips toward the employers’ obligation to pay the full minimum wage for a non-tipped occupation – effectively allowed the employers to treat their employees’ tips as payments to the employers rather than the employees, thereby minimizing the employers’ obligation to pay their employees the full minimum wage for time spent performing work in a non-tipped occupation.  Marsh, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26387, at *6 & n.2.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately determined that this practice is disallowed.  The Ninth Circuit held that the DOL “foreclosed an employer’s ability to engage in this practice by promulgating a dual jobs regulation in 1967, 29 C.F.R. § 531.56(e), and subsequently interpreting that regulation in its 1988 Field Operations Handbook.”  Marsh v. J. Alexander’s, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26387, at *6.  The Court concluded that both the regulation and the DOL’s interpretation of that regulation were entitled to deference.   This result aligns the Ninth Circuit with the Eighth Circuit and its decision in Fast v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., 638 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2011).

As a result of giving deference to the regulation and its interpretation, the Court concluded that Marsh “stated two claims for relief under the FLSA: first, that he is entitled to the full hourly minimum wage for the substantial time he spent completing related but untipped tasks, defined as more than 20% of his workweek; and second, that he is entitled to the same for time he spent on unrelated tasks.”  Marsh, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26387, at *42.

If you believe that separating employees’ tasks and pay in this manner is unworkable, the Ninth Circuit would disagree.  The Court believes the system is workable because an employer may “keep track of time spent on related tasks by requiring employees to clock in any time spent rolling silverware or cleaning the restaurant before and after the restaurant closes or when business is slow.”  Marsh, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26387, at *38-39.  Of course, it remains to be seen how the other appellate courts will deal with this issue, particularly in light of the arguments asserted in the lawsuit filed by a restaurant group in Texas that the 80/20 rule is invalid (see blog on Texas lawsuit).

Thus, practically speaking, an employer with tipped employees needs to pay careful attention to who is performing tasks unrelated to those tipped occupations, and who dedicates a substantial amount (more than twenty percent) of their working time to tasks that are untipped-yet-related to their tipped occupation.  Because now, payment of those employees is subject to both the DOL’s regulation and interpretation, at least in jurisdictions covered by the Eighth and Ninth Circuits.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brad Adler at [email protected] or Koty Newman at [email protected].

DOL Guidance On No Fault Attendance Policies

Posted on: September 21st, 2018

By: Joyce Mocek

The Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division issued a new opinion letter on an employer’s no-fault attendance policy which effectively froze an employee’s attendance points that had accrued prior to taking the FMLA leave.  The DOL maintained that the no-fault attendance policy did not violate the FMLA if it was applied in a non-discriminatory manner, and applied consistently with other types of leave.

The FMLA prohibits employers from “interfering with, restraining, or denying” an employee’s exercise of FMLA rights, and prohibits employers from “discriminating or retaliating against an employee.. for having exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights.”  29 CFR 825.220.  In its opinion letter, the DOL noted that employees cannot accrue points for taking FMLA leave under a no-fault attendance policy.  Further, the FMLA does not entitle an employee to superior benefits simply because they take FMLA leave.

In the opinion letter, the DOL advised that since the employee’s number of accrued points remained frozen during the FMLA leave the employee neither lost a benefit that accrued prior to taking the leave, nor accrued any additional benefit which he or she would not have been otherwise entitled.  The DOL thus advised that this policy would not violate the FMLA.  However, the DOL noted that if the employer counted other types of leave (i.e. active service) under its no-fault policy, then the employer may be discriminating against employees that take FMLA leave as this inconsistency would violate the FMLA.

Employers should be mindful of this recent DOL opinion letter guidance and review their no-fault attendance policy to ensure compliance and consistency with other leave policies.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Joyce Mocek at [email protected].

Don’t Get Bitten… Are You In Compliance With DOL’s COBRA Continuation Coverage Election Notice?

Posted on: August 21st, 2018

By: Pamela Everett

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida has certified a class action suit against Marriott International, Inc. for allegations that it failed to provide required notices of eligible terminated employees’ right to continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA).  The law suit was filed by Alina Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, who alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by COBRA.  The Plaintiff asserted that after her termination as a covered employee and participant in Marriott’s health plan she was not provided with adequate notice of her rights to continued coverage under COBRA thus causing her to fail to enroll and incur excessive medical bills.

Marriott’s  plan provided medical benefits to employees and their beneficiaries, and is an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) and a group health plan within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1167(1).  COBRA requires the plan sponsor of each group health plan normally employing more than 20 employees on a typical business day during the preceding year to provide each qualified beneficiary who would lose coverage under the plan as a result of a qualifying event to elect, within the election period, continuation coverage under the plan.  This notice must be in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. To facilitate compliance with these notice obligations, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a Model COBRA Continuation Coverage Election Notice which is included in the Appendix to 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4.

Plaintiff alleged that, “Marriott authored and disseminated a notice that was not appropriately completed, deviating from the model form in violation of COBRA’s requirements, which failed to provide Plaintiff notice of all required coverage information and hindered Plaintiff’s ability to obtain continuation coverage”.  The  Model Notice also requires that notice shall be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant.   Specifically, in her suit the Plaintiff asserted that Marriott’s Notice violated the following requirements:

a. The Notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(i) because it fails to provide the name, address and telephone number of the party responsible under the plan for the administration of continuation coverage benefits. Nowhere in the notice provided to Plaintiff is any party or entity clearly and unambiguously identified as the Plan Administrator.

b. The Notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(iv) because it fails to provide all required explanatory information. There is no explanation that a legal guardian may elect continuation coverage on behalf of a minor child, or a minor child who may later become a qualified beneficiary.

c. The Notice violates 29 C.F.R. § 2590.606-4(b)(4)(vi) because it fails to provide an explanation of the consequences of failing to elect or waiving continuation coverage, including an explanation that a qualified beneficiary’s decision whether to elect continuation coverage will affect the future rights of qualified beneficiaries to portability of group health coverage, guaranteed access to individual health coverage, and special enrollment under part 7 of title I of the Act, with a reference to where a qualified beneficiary may obtain additional information about such rights; and a description of the plan’s procedures for revoking a waiver of the right to continuation coverage before the date by which the election must be made.”

In her certification of the class, U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven also rejected Marriott’s argument that Vazquez’s claims were not typical because Vazquez could not understand English, could not  have understood the notice once it had been translated and could not afford COBRA continuation coverage.  Currently there is no requirement that the Notice be provided in any language other than English.  Perhaps this suit will change that requirement in a manner similar to some of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act.

Most importantly, this case highlights the importance of ensuring that your company complies with DOL regulations, and to the extent practicable, utilizes the forms provided.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Pamela Everett at [email protected].