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

Posts Tagged ‘FLSA’

U.S. Supreme Court Holds All Public Employers Are Covered By The ADEA

Posted on: November 9th, 2018

By: Brent Bean

On November 6, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated opinion in Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido, 586 U.S. __ (2018), which FMG previously discussed here.  At issue was whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) applies to all state and political subdivisions, regardless of the size of their workforce.

The ADEA generally prohibits employers from discriminating in their employment decisions against employees over the age of forty.  29 U.S.C. § 621-634.  The ADEA, however, only applies to private sector employers with more than twenty employees.  To that end, ADEA defines “employer” as:

a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. . . .  The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State, and any interstate agency, but such term does not include the United States.  29 U.S.C. 630(b) (emphases added).

The Supreme Court took this case to resolve the circuit split among the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits on the one hand, all of which had held that the ADEA’s twenty-employee threshold applies to a State or political subdivision, and the Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, which ruled that the ADEA’s twenty-employee minimum does not apply to those employers.

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ginsburg held that the plain language of the statute, “also means,” is additive, rather than clarifying.  As such, there is no twenty-employee threshold for a State or political subdivisions.  The Court rejected the fire district’s argument that the ADEA should be analogized to Title VII, where numerical limits apply to private and public sector employers with equal force.  Instead, Justice Ginsburg wrote, the ADEA, amended in 1974 to cover state and local governments, was more akin to the FLSA, amended that same year, which has no workforce limit.

Accordingly, the ADEA applies with greater scope to cover all state and political subdivisions without limitation to the size of their workforce.  We recommend that public sector employers, especially those which have smaller workforces, revisit their handbooks and training on complying with, and avoiding litigation under, the ADEA.

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

Panera Assistant Managers Granted Cert. In Overtime Suit Reminds Franchisees that Duties, Not Title, Prevail

Posted on: October 22nd, 2018

By: Brad Adler & Hillary Freesmeier

While retail employers have tightened up their wage and hour practices, there are still too many companies in the retail industry, including fast food and fast casual employers, that have failed to take inventory of their compliance with current wage and hour laws. One such example is how some retail employers classify their assistant managers.  For years, there have been contentious fights over whether assistant managers can be classified as exempt under the administrative exemption.

And that fight continues as a federal judge in the District of Columbia has granted conditional certification of a nationwide collective and D.C. collective of Panera bread assistant managers who have sued the national chain for alleged denial of overtime wages under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act.

In conditionally certifying the collectives, U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey found that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence that the assistant managers were classified as exempt from FLSA overtime provisions, but the bulk of the work they performed was nonmanagerial – a reminder that under the FLSA an employee’s duties, not title, determine exemption status. The plaintiffs assert that their assistant manager training focused on nonmanagerial tasks that involved customer service, cashiering, food preparation, and cleaning, while general managers took on the actual managerial work, and management issues such as budgets, prices, restaurant layouts, marketing and promotion strategies, hours of operation, and dress code were set by Panera’s corporate headquarters.

This suit is not the first Panera has seen in relation to assistant managers and overtime pay in recent months. In February of this year, Covelli Enterprises, a Panera franchisee which owns and operates approximately 260 Panera bakery-cafes in five states and Ontario, Canada, was sued in an Ohio federal court by a proposed class of assistant managers alleging they were improperly classified as exempt and deprived of overtime wages. This action is still pending. Additionally, in June a federal judge in New Jersey conditionally certified a collective action by Panera assistant managers with similar claims.

As these cases develop, employers and franchisees should be mindful of their management structure and duty assignments to ensure FLSA compliance. These suits serve as a reminder that FLSA exemption does not necessarily rest on an employee’s title, but their duties and responsibilities within their role.

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

The Side Work Struggle: Nonprofit Restaurant Group Challenges The 80/20 Tip Credit Rule In Texas Federal Court

Posted on: September 19th, 2018

By: John McAvoy

On July 6, 2018, a nonprofit restaurant advocacy group filed suit against the U.S. Department of Labor in Texas Federal Court challenging the rule that governs the compensation of tipped employees; specifically, the DOL’s “80/20 Tip Credit Rule” or “20% Rule” set forth in the 2012 revision to the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook. Restaurant Law Center v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, No. 18-cv-567 (W.D. Tex. July 6, 2018).

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), employers may pay a “tipped employee”—i.e., “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips”—a cash wage of $2.13 per hour (or more) so long as the employer satisfies certain statutory criteria, including that the employee’s tips plus the cash wage equal the minimum wage. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m), 203(t). That means tips are credited against – and satisfy a portion of – employers’ obligation to pay minimum wage. Congress has noted occupations in which workers qualify for this so-called tip credit: “waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, service bartenders, etc.” S. Rep. No. 93-690, at 43 (Feb. 22, 1974).

The FLSA tip credit is not available to employers in all situations. Rather, the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule limits the use of a tip credit wage where workers spend more than 20% of their time performing secondary work not directly related to tip-generating activities. Such secondary work is universally known throughout the restaurant industry as “side work.”

Side work encompasses any and all secondary tasks restaurant employees must complete in addition to their primary responsibilities waiting tables, expediting food, bussing tables or tending bar. Side work generally includes things like rolling silverware, restocking glasses and various other items, cleaning and/or any other behind the scenes tasks necessary to ensure that restaurant operations run smoothly.

The 80/20 Tip Credit Rule provides that if a tipped employee spends more than 20% of his or her time during a workweek performing side work, i.e. duties that are not directly related to generating tips, the employer may not take a tip credit for the time spent performing those duties.

Tipped employees and employers throughout the industry share a deep-seated aversion to the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule for three (3) main reasons. First, the Rule is unclear as to what is, and what is not, an allegedly “tip generating” duty. Second, side work varies from restaurant to restaurant and shift to shift and is subject to unpredictable external conditions; most notably, the number of patrons that dine in the restaurant on any given day. For example, a bartender working the Saturday night shift in a chain restaurant may spend 95% of his or her shift serving customers, and a mere 5% on side work. However, that same bartender may open the restaurant the following day (Sunday morning) and spend 40% of his or her shift on side work from the night before, and only 60% serving customers. Third, tipped employees do not generally log their hours separately by task. As a result, tipped employees and their employers have struggled to apply the Rule. Tipped employees have to ask themselves whether they are working for less than minimum wage, and employers have to constantly wonder whether they are in compliance with the current state of the 80/20 Rule.

These issues, among others, have spawned several lawsuits challenging the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule. For example, the plaintiff in Restaurant Law Center contends, among other things, that the DOL “surreptitiously and improperly” created the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule, rather than abiding by the rulemaking process, thereby violating the Administrative Procedure Act.

Restaurant Law Center is worth mentioning because there is a split emerging among the circuit courts as to the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule’s validity. In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the validity of the Rule. However, in September 2017, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the DOL effectively imposed new recordkeeping guidelines on employers to determine which tasks are tip generating and which are not.  In doing so, the Ninth Circuit held that the DOL had created a new regulation inconsistent with the “dual jobs” regulation. Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s three-judge panel issued this opinion, the Ninth Circuit granted a rehearing before the full panel. Although the case was re-argued in March 2018, the full panel has yet to issue its opinion. If the Ninth Circuit upholds its prior decision, or the Fifth Circuit (where the July 6, 2018 lawsuit is pending) ultimately invalidates the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule on appeal, there will be a split among the federal appeals courts, opening the doors for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the validity and enforceability of the 80/20 Tip Credit Rule.

Needless to say, the outcome of these cases will have serious implications to the restaurant industry in all jurisdictions throughout the country.

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