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

Posts Tagged ‘retail’

Jeff Bezos Just Challenged Amazon’s Retail Rivals To Match Its $15 Minimum Wage – Is Bezos’ Challenge Checkmate or Checkout For the Push To Increase Minimum Wage?

Posted on: April 15th, 2019

By: Brad Adler and Matthew Jones

Five months ago, in November, 2018, Amazon raised its minimum wage to $15/hour. Now, Amazon’s leader is challenging his competitors in the retail sector to do the same.  In a letter to shareholders that was submitted to the SEC on April 11, 2019, Jeff Bezos stated “Today I challenge our top retail competitors (you know who you are!) to match our employee benefits and our $15 minimum wage… Do it! Better yet, go to $16 and throw the gauntlet back at us. It’s a kind of competition that will benefit everyone.”

Bezos’ aggressive challenge comes in the midst of an undercurrent of momentum for an increase in both federal and state minimum wage laws. That momentum seems to be leading to some changes at the state level. For instance, on January 1, 2019, California’s minimum wage was increased to $12/hour for companies with 26 or more employees. Likewise, Maine increased its minimum wage from $10,00 to $11.00 in 2019 and Massachusetts raised its minimum wage rate from $11.00 to $12.00.

So what effect, if any, will Bezos’ challenge and the state movements have on the federal minimum wage? Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, which is significantly lower than the minimum wage rate in many states (including Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York and New Jersey). Just recently, the House Education and Labor Committee passed the “Raise the Wage Act,” which proposes to increase the federal minimum wage to $15/hour over the next six years. Most commentators believe that the likelihood that this bill will become law is very low, but it nevertheless is a reminder to all of the stakeholders, including employers, that the issue of minimum wage isn’t going away anytime soon.

Of course, not everyone takes kindly to the billionaire’s $15/hour challenge. In response to the challenge, Walmart’s executive vice president of corporate affairs Dan Bartless tweeted out: “Hey retail competitors out there (you know who you are) how about paying your taxes?”

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

SEC Fiduciary Rules Proceeds on Split Vote

Posted on: April 19th, 2018

By: Theodore C. Peters

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) conducted a public hearing on April 18, 2018 to address a series of SEC proposals governing securities professionals.  Recall that the Department of Labor previously sought to promulgate a “fiduciary rule” which encountered numerous legal hurdles and ultimately was struck down by the Fifth Circuit.  Concurrently, over the last 11 months, the SEC has been working on its own set of rules to provide the securities industry with more clarity concerning advice standards.  After a two hour hearing, the SEC Commissioners split over whether to proceed with the next step in the rule making process.  Chairman Jay Clayton and Commissioners Michael S. Piwowar, Robert J. Jackson Jr. and Hester M. Peirce voted in favor of the proposals; Commissioner Kara M. Stein vociferously rejected the proposals.

At issue were three proposals: (1) a rule to establish a standard of conduct for broker-dealers and their associated persons when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to a retail customer; (2) a rule requiring registered broker-dealers and registered investment advisers to provide a brief relationship summary to retail investors; and (3) a formal SEC interpretation of the standard of conduct applicable to investment advisers.  Various SEC staffers introduced each of the proposals with candid remarks, tacitly admitting that there was room for improvement with respect to each component of the proposal package.

The so-called “Regulation Best Interest” would mandate that broker-dealers and their registered representatives who make recommendations to a retail customer act in the best interest of the customer at the time the recommendation is made, without putting the financial or other interest of the broker-dealer ahead of the retail customer.  To comply with this obligation, a broker-dealer would need to do three things: (1) disclose key facts about the relationship (including material conflicts of interest); (2) exercise reasonable diligence/care/skill to i) understand the product, ii) have a reasonable basis to believe that the product is in the customer’s best interest, and iii) have a reasonable basis to believe that a series of transactions is in the customer’s best interest; and (3) establish/maintain/enforce policies and procedures designed to identify and disclose and then mitigate or eliminate material conflicts of interest.

The Form CRS (customer relationship summary) rule would require investment advisers and broker-dealers (and their associated persons) to provide retail investors with a short-form (4 pages maximum) disclosure summary that would identify key differences in the principal types of services offered, the legal standards of conduct that apply to each, applicable fees and conflicts of interest.

In connection with the proposal regarding a Commission interpretation of the standard of conduct for investment advisers, the SEC seeks a Commission-sanctioned interpretation as to the duty owed by an investment adviser to his/her clients.  The proposed interpretation reaffirms, and in some cases clarifies, certain aspects of the fiduciary duty owed by an investment adviser.

Republican Commissioner Michael Piwowar candidly admitted that the failed DOL Fiduciary Rule was “terrible,” “horrible,” and “very bad.”  He expressed greater faith in the SEC proposals, though he said that the proposals could be improved in several respects.  He stated that the proposed Regulation Best Interest represented a “solid building block,” but noted that there was much room for improvement.  As for the proposed Form CRS template, Piwower suggested that it was “as comprehensible as Herman Melville’s Moby Dick.”  Despite having misgivings as to all three proposals, he voted in favor of them.

Democratic Commissioner Robert Jackson, who admitted being an advocate of the DOL Fiduciary Rule, also professed to have concerns over the proposals.  He stated that the standard set forth in Regulation Best Interest was too ambiguous and he feared that such ambiguity would be used by lawyers to defend transgressing brokers.  As for the proposal concerning mitigation of conflicts of interest, Jackson stated that “some conflicts should simply be banned outright.”  Despite his concerns, Jackson stated that he was “reluctantly voting to open the proposals for comment.”

Republican Commissioner Hester Peirce concurred with many of the prior comments concerning clarity (or the lack thereof) of the proposals.  She stated that “disclosure should be the centerpiece of reform,” and that she was in favor of requiring brokers to provide more details in connection with their disclosures of services offered and fees charged. Peirce believes that the proposed Regulation Best Interest was mislabeled, stating that it would be more accurate to call it a “suitability-plus” standard.  Lack of clarity in the proposal leads to increased cost of compliance, Peirce said, and suggests an “impossible standard” to satisfy which could lead to a decline in the number of registered broker-dealers. Commissioner Peirce stated that the proposals were an “excellent start toward reform,” and voted in favor of them.

Democratic Commissioner Kara Stein blasted the proposals as too weak.  She said the Commission had the opportunity to propose meaningful proposals, but failed to do so.  Critically, Stein said the Regulation Best Interest provided broker-dealers with a safe harbor and did nothing to require that they put customers’ interests first.  Noting that the proposed regulation lacked any definition of “best interest,” Stein said the proposal might mislead investors and might as well be called “Regulation Status Quo,” because it simply reaffirms that broker-dealers are required to meet their suitability obligations.  Not surprisingly, Commissioner Stein voted against the proposals.

Chairman Jay Clayton acknowledged his fellow Commissioners’ comments and stated that “much work” was still needed before the proposals could be adopted as final rules.  Calling for a vote, Commissioners Piwower, Jackson, Peirce and Clayton voted in favor; Commission Stein voted against.  With majority approval, the SEC’s rule package will now be submitted for a 90-day public comment period.

If you have questions or would like more information, please contact Ted Peters at [email protected].