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

Posts Tagged ‘Fair Labor Standards Act’

Arbitration Agreement Litigation Wins Continue to Fall Like Dominoes for Pizza Hut

Posted on: June 26th, 2018

By: Tim Holdsworth

Following the Supreme Court’s opinion in Epic Systems that class and collective actions waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, a federal court recently granted a motion to compel arbitration to one of the nation’s largest Pizza Hut franchisees in a lawsuit in Illinois.

In Collins et al. v. NPC International Inc., case number 3:17-cv-00312, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, drivers from Illinois, Florida, and Missouri filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act asserting that their employer had failed to reimburse them for vehicle expenses. In May 2017, the judge stayed the franchisee’s motion to compel individual arbitration pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Systems. The franchisee renewed that motion after the Supreme Court’s ruling, and the judge granted it.

The drivers will now have to bring their claims individually against the franchisee in arbitration, likely saving the franchisee expenses and time.

Epic Systems gave credence to arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers, and employers using them continue to reap the benefits. If you have any questions about the issues above or want to learn more about implementing arbitration agreements, please contact me at [email protected], or any of Freeman, Mathis & Gary’s experienced labor and employment law attorneys.

Coffee, Water, Less Than 20 Minutes

Posted on: June 19th, 2018

SCOTUS KICKS THE CAN ON SHORT BREAKS COMPENSATION

By: John McAvoy

On June 11, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to entertain the appeal of a Pennsylvania employer that could have resolved the emerging split of authority between the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) as to the compensability of employees’ short rest breaks.

In American Future Systems, Inc. d/b/a Progressive Business Publications v. R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, the Secretary of Labor filed suit against Progressive Business Publications, a company that publishes and distributes business publications and sells them through its sales representatives, as well as the company’s owner, alleging they violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by paying their salespeople an hourly wage and bonuses based on their number of sales per hour while they were logged onto the computer at their workstations, and by not paying them if they were logged off for more than 90 seconds.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously found that the employer’s policy had violated the FLSA, relying on a DOL regulation which states that “[r]est periods of short duration, running from 5 minutes to about 20 minutes, are common in industry.  They promote the efficiency of the employee and are customarily paid for as working time.  They must be counted as hours worked.”  In so holding, the District Court found that the employer was liable for at least $1.75 million in back wages and damages.

On appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the employer argued that that it provided “flex time” rather than “breaks,” which allowed workers to clock out whenever they wanted, for any reason.  In other words, that the employees were not “working” after they logged off of their computers since they could do anything they wanted, including leaving the office.  The appellate court rejected this argument, reasoning that to dock the pay of employees who can’t manage a bathroom sprint is “absolutely contrary to the FLSA,” and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Third Circuit’s reliance on DOL regulation was contrary to the holdings of some of the other circuit courts which opted to assess the circumstances of the break in lieu of interpreting the DOL regulation as a bright-line rule that fails to take into consideration the facts of a particular situation.

The employer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify how compensability for breaks should be determined.  Citing the circuit split, the employer posited that the question of break pay should be determined by assessing the circumstances of the break, rather than adopting the DOL regulation as a bright-line rule.  In its reply brief, the DOL fervently defended its regulations and denied the existence of the alleged circuit split, arguing that “hours worked [are] not limited to the time an employee actually performs his or her job duties.”  Unfortunately, this remains an issue for another day as the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and/or resolve the alleged split.

Absent a decision from the Supreme Court to the contrary, employers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware are bound by the Third Circuit’s decision. As such, employers in these states must continue to comply with DOL regulations with respect to the compensability of short breaks.

Fortunately, the applicable DOL regulations are designed to protect employers’ rights. For starters, the regulations recognize that meal periods serve a different purpose than coffee or snack breaks and, as such, are not compensable.  Second, an employer need not count an employee’s unauthorized extensions of authorized work breaks as hours worked when the employer has expressly and unambiguously communicated to the employee that the authorized break may only last for a specific length of time, that any extension of the break is contrary to the employer’s rules, and any extension of the break will be punished.

Although an employer will have to compensate an employee who repeatedly takes unauthorized breaks lasting less than 20 minutes in order to comply with the Third Circuit’s ruling and the applicable DOL regulations, the employer is nevertheless free to discipline the employee for such indiscretions by whatever means the employer deems appropriate, including termination.

Prudent employers should prepare themselves to address such issues through smart planning and proper training of employees, including managers, supervisors and HR personnel to ensure the employer’s break, discipline, and termination policies and procedures comply with all applicable DOL regulations.

Want to know whether your company’s break, discipline, and termination policies and procedures comply with DOL regulations? Let me help. Please call or email me (215.789.4919; [email protected]).

PA Fed. Ct. Finds UberBLACK Limousine Drivers Maintain Independent Contractor Status

Posted on: April 30th, 2018

By: John P. McAvoy

On April 12, 2018, Uber Technologies, Inc. won its legal battle on the recurring issue of independent contractor misclassification when the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the company’s motion for summary judgment in Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-573 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2018) (Baylson, J.). In so holding, the court concluded that UberBLACK limousine drivers are not employees of Uber covered by state and federal wage laws.

Uber has been defending independent contractor misclassification cases in state and federal courts throughout the country since the company first opened its doors in 2009. Like several other ride-sharing companies, Uber has persistently maintained that its drivers are independent contractors and that, as such, the company is exempt from the state and federal wages laws of all jurisdictions in which it conducts business. Despite these salient arguments, the vast majority of courts have concluded that the workers were Uber employees subject to wage laws, indicating that a slightly different set of facts may have swayed the decision in the other direction. However, based on the Honorable Michael M. Baylson’s opinion in the Razak case, it appears this pattern has reached its natural end.

Unlike other federal and state courts that have addressed this issue, the Eastern District concluded that almost all of the factors the court considered weighed heavily in favor of classifying UberBLACK limousine drivers as independent contractors that do not enjoy the rights, benefits and securities provided by state and federal wage laws.

The Eastern District reached its decision by applying the six factor test set forth in Donovan v. Dialamerica Marketing, Inc., 757 F.2d 1376 (3d Cir. 1985); namely, (1) the degree of Uber’s right to control the manner in which the work is performed (“Right to Control”); (2) the UberBLACK limousine drivers’ opportunity for profit or loss depending on their managerial skill (“Opportunity for Profit or Loss”); (3) the UberBLACK limousine drivers’ investment in equipment or materials required for their task, or their employment of helpers (“Employee Investment”); (4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill (“Special Skills”); (5) the degree of permanence of the working relationship (“Relationship Permanence”); and (6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of Uber’s business (“Integration”). The court found that all but two of the factors (i.e., Special Skills and Integration) strongly favored independent contractor status. Accordingly, the court concluded that the UberBLACK limousine drivers had not met their burden of showing that they are employees and that Uber is their employer.

If upheld on appeal to the Third Circuit, the Razak decision could finally put to rest the issue of whether Uber drivers and workers at companies that employ similar business models are being misclassified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act and any state wage laws that test for independent contractor status in the same or similar fashion.

If you have any questions or would like more information about this case, please contact John P. McAvoy at [email protected].

Bonus or No Bonus? California Supreme Court Clarifies Calculation of Overtime

Posted on: April 16th, 2018

By: Christine C. Lee

Calculating the correct overtime pay rate for non-exempt employees just got a little more complicated for California employers who elect to pay bonuses.  In the recent case of Alvarado v. Dart Container Corporation of California, plaintiff Hector Alvarado, a non-exempt warehouse worker, was paid a flat “attendance bonus” of $15 per day in addition to his hourly rate if he worked a full shift on a Saturday or Sunday.  Because there was no California statute, regulation or wage order directing how employers should calculate the rate of pay for overtime purposes when such non-discretionary flat sum bonuses are paid, the employer, Dart Container Corporation of California, followed the methodology set forth in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Dart calculated the overtime pay rate by taking Mr. Alvarado’s total earnings in the relevant pay period, which included the attendance bonuses, and dividing that figure by all hours worked in the pay period including overtime.  Using this figure, Dart paid Mr. Alvarado 1.5 times this rate for every overtime hour worked.

To thank his employer for the bonuses, Mr. Alvarado sued Dart in a wage and hour class action alleging Dart miscalculated the overtime rate of pay.  He argued Dart should have divided the period’s earnings and attendance bonuses only by the amount of non-overtime hours worked which would have resulted in a marginally higher overtime rate of pay.  In support of his position, Mr. Alvarado relied on the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (DLSE) Enforcement Policies and Interpretations Manual which states that when employees earn a flat sum bonus, their overtime rate is determined by dividing the regular and bonus earnings only by the regular non-overtime hours worked during the relevant pay period.  The case reached the California Supreme Court for guidance.

There, Dart argued because its formula complied with the federal FLSA when California law gave no guidance, its methodology was lawful.  Dart also argued the DLSE Manual was merely an underground regulation and interpretation of the law and therefore was not entitled to any special deference.  The Court agreed the DLSE manual was not entitled to special deference.  Nevertheless, the Court held “[W]e are obligated to prefer an interpretation that discourages employers from imposing overtime work and that favors the protection of the employee’s interests.”  The Court found Mr. Alvarado’s method was “marginally more favorable to employees” and should now be the law of California.  To add further ambiguity to its ruling, the Court cautioned this methodology only applied to non-production related flat sum bonuses and not necessarily to production-based bonuses such as piece rate or commission-based bonuses.

Dart requested only prospective application of the Court’s rulings since California law had been unclear up to that point.  The Court refused the request, leaving Dart on the hook for 4+ years’ worth of unpaid overtime, penalties for inaccurate wage statements, penalties under Labor Code §203 and California’s Private Attorney General Act, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The unfortunate result of this decision is that employers may stop bonusing non-exempt employees and/or flee California to avoid this kind of catastrophic litigation.

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

 

Service Advisors Once Again Exempt From Overtime

Posted on: April 3rd, 2018

By: Brad Adler & Michael Hill

After years of back and forth in the lowers courts, the Supreme Court has ruled that service advisors at auto dealerships are exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  It’s the rare case that goes to the Supreme Court twice.  But after taking the scenic route through the federal court system, the Supreme Court’s Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro decision finally has arrived and brought much-needed clarity to auto dealerships across the country.

As we have written in several previous blogs, the confusion began in 2011, when the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) suddenly (and without explanation) reversed its decades-old position that service advisors were exempt from the FLSA.  The text of the statute at issue provides that “salesman . . . primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” at covered dealerships are exempt.  Since the 1970s, courts and even the DOL itself took the position that a service advisor was such a “salesman.”  In 2011, however, the DOL threw a monkey wrench under the hood by issuing a new rule that “salesman” under the statute no longer would include a service advisor.

This ruling from the Supreme Court, however, applies a straightforward interpretation of the statute’s language and holds that a service advisor is a “salesman . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.”  According to Justice Clarence Thomas, who authored the majority’s opinion, “servicing automobiles” includes more than just working underneath the hood of a car.  “Servicing” is a concept broad enough to encompass meeting with customers, listening to their concerns, suggesting or recommending certain repairs and maintenance, selling new accessories or replacement parts, following up with customers as services are performed, and explaining the repairs and maintenance work to customers when they come to pick up their vehicles.

The Encino Motorcars decision also brought back a special souvenir for employers in other industries.  In reversing the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the oft-quoted principle that exemptions to the FLSA “should be construed narrowly.”  It now is the Supreme Court’s view that, because the FLSA does not actually say its exemptions should be interpreted narrowly, “there is no reason to give [them] anything other than a fair (rather than a ‘narrow’) interpretation.”  As there are over two dozen exemptions just to the overtime-pay requirement of the FLSA, Encino Motorcars may provide some ammunition for employers fighting exemption disputes in the future.

For questions about this case or how it may impact your business, or other questions or advice regarding wage and hour laws, please contact [email protected] or [email protected].