Tag: Fair Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Takes Up FLSA High Earners Exemption

On October 12, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that considers whether a supervisor who earned over $200,000 annually may still be eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The case centers on the interpretation of the regulatory scheme surrounding highly compensated employees and their exemption status under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff in the case was a worker in a supervisory role on an oil rig and his compensation was based on a daily rate. The plaintiff argued that his daily rate of pay did not constitute a salary.  Prior to the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit en banc agreed with the Plaintiff and found that he was not paid a salary such that he was not an exempt employee under the FLSA.

This case has implications for how employers will pay workers, and whether there is potential exposure for overtime claims, even for highly compensated employees.

For more Labor and Employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Federal District Court Says Pre-Shift COVID Screening Time Not Compensable

In the first reported decision we’ve seen addressing the issue head on, a federal district court in California dismissed a putative collective action claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) seeking payment for time spent in pre-shift COVID screening.

Prior to clocking in each day, the plaintiff—a non-exempt truck driver whose job duties included loading and transporting automobile parts from a central distribution center to stores throughout southern California—was required to submit to COVID-related health screening conducted on his employer’s premises.  During the screening process, a company employee asked the plaintiff a series of questions and took the plaintiff’s temperature.  The total time spent in the screening process often exceeded five minutes, which included waiting time.

The plaintiff filed a collective action claim, contending that the time spent by him and other employees participating in the daily screening was compensable under the FLSA.

Starting with the premise that time spent in pre-shift activities is only compensable under the FLSA if it is “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s “principal activities or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform,” the district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, noting:

A pre-shift COVID screening is not the “principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform.”  29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(1).  O’Reilly did not hire the employees to undergo health screenings, but instead to load and transport products to stores….  [T]he pre-shift COVID screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ duties because the screening was not an intrinsic element of the loading and transporting of products to the stores.  The screenings were not indispensable to the employees’ duties because O’Reilly could eliminate them completely without hindering the employees’ ability to perform their duties….  A pre-shift COVID temperature check and short questions regarding exposure do not share the required nexus with Plaintiff’s duties of retrieving automotive parts and delivering them to auto part stores to make the screening a compensable activity that is integral and indispensable to those activities.

Notably, the court referenced—and then distinguished—the U.S. Department of Labor’s COVID-19 and the Fair Labor Standards Act Questions and Answers, which were issued during the height of the pandemic and which many employers felt were ambiguous on the issue of which COVID-related activities were and weren’t considered “hours worked” under the FLSA:

Unlike the nurse in the DOL example whose principal job duty is to keep patients healthy and has direct patient contact, Plaintiff’s principal activities consisted of manual labor and transportation of auto parts to stores.

We examined those agency Q&As—and the broader issues around compensability of time spent in vaccination, testing, and screening activities—in an earlier blog.

The decision is Pipich v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2022).

Article By Allan S Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Circuit Split on Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction in FLSA Collective Actions

On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear petitions seeking review of whether federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. The petitions sought review of rulings on the issue by the First and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals in Waters v. Day & Zimmermann NPS, Inc. and Canaday v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., respectively. As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision declining to hear the petitions, there remains a circuit split as to whether the Court’s 2017 ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court applies to FLSA collective actions, and employers with nationwide footprints remain subject to uncertainty depending on jurisdiction.

To date, only the First, Sixth, and Eighth Circuits have ruled on the issue. On August 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit was the first to address the issue in Canaday. There, the Court held that federal courts may not exercise personal jurisdiction over claims of nonresident plaintiffs who join FLSA collective actions when their claims are not connected to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. Just one day later, on August 18, 2021, the Eighth Circuit came to the same conclusion in Vallone v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC.

On January 13, 2022, in Waters, the First Circuit held to the contrary, concluding that federal courts do have personal jurisdiction over claims asserted by nonresident opt-in plaintiffs.

The Significance of Bristol-Myers

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers provides the basis for the current circuit split. Bristol-Myers involved a mass tort action under state law for alleged defects in a blood-thinning drug, Plavix, which the company manufactured. Residents and nonresidents of California sued Bristol-Myers in California state court, alleging injuries related to the drug. The nonresident plaintiffs claimed no relationship with the forum state, nor did they purchase Plavix in California or suffer any harm from it in California. The Supreme Court reasoned that any similarity between the resident and nonresident plaintiffs’ claims was an “insufficient basis” to exercise specific jurisdiction. Unless nonresident plaintiffs could demonstrate that their claims arose out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, personal jurisdiction over the company did not exist, no matter “the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.”

In ruling that the California state court lacked jurisdiction over the claims of the nonresident plaintiffs, the Supreme Court acknowledged that its holding might ultimately generate more litigation in the form of separate actions by nonresident plaintiffs in their respective states. But the Supreme Court also noted that all plaintiffs to the action could have brought a mass tort action against Bristol-Myers in New York (the company’s headquarters) or Delaware (its place of incorporation) because courts in those states would have had general personal jurisdiction over the company. Instead, the California state court could exercise only specific personal jurisdiction over the company based on its activities in the state. Notably, Bristol-Myers was limited to Rule 23 class actions, leaving lower courts to determine whether its holding applied to FLSA collective actions, which differ procedurally.

The Circuit Split

In Canaday, the Sixth Circuit reiterated the basic tenet that, pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the question of whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant depends on the defendant’s contacts with the state in which the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Because Anthem is both incorporated and headquartered in Indiana and not otherwise “at home” in the state of Tennessee, the district court in Tennessee lacked general jurisdiction over Anthem as a defendant. At issue was whether the district court in Tennessee had specific personal jurisdiction over Anthem, and thus, whether there was a claim-specific and Anthem-specific relationship between the nonresidents’ FLSA claims and the state of Tennessee.

Applying Bristol-Myers, the Sixth Circuit held that there was not. The court found that the nonresident plaintiffs did not bring claims arising out of or relating to Anthem’s conduct in Tennessee, because Anthem neither employed nor paid the nonresident plaintiffs within the state. The Sixth Circuit went on the explain that adherence to this approach should not change the way FLSA collective actions are filed, because plaintiffs traditionally file their actions where courts have general jurisdiction, or where the conduct occurred. Of note, Sixth Circuit Judge Bernice Donald dissented in Canaday, contending that Bristol-Myers does not apply to FLSA collective actions because the Supreme Court in that case addressed only the limitations of state courts, not federal courts, in their exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.

In Waters, the First Circuit largely followed the reasoning in Judge Donald’s dissent, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb “rest[ed] on Fourteenth Amendment constitutional limits on state courts exercising jurisdiction over state-law claims” and thus did not control whether a federal court could exercise jurisdiction over federal claims asserted by nonresident plaintiffs. The First Circuit also observed that the plain language of Rule 4(k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely concerns the service of summonses and does not “constrain[] a federal court’s power to act once a summons has been properly served, and personal jurisdiction has been established.”

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the petitions means that employers with nationwide footprints continue to live with potentially inconsistent rulings on the question of whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear claims of out-of-state workers when the defendant is neither headquartered nor incorporated in the state. Canaday and Vallone stand to significantly limit the size and geographic scope of FLSA collective actions in the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, absent a district court’s exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant, while Waters permits nationwide jurisdiction in the First Circuit. For now, at least, multistate employers face continued uncertainty on the issue until courts of appeals in the remaining circuits weigh in.

Article By Maggie (Hanrahan) Santen, Monica Lacks, and Samuel H. Ottinger of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Cryptocurrency As Compensation: Beware Of The Risks

A small but growing number of employees are asking for cryptocurrency as a form of compensation.  Whether a substitute for wages or as part of an incentive package, offering cryptocurrency as compensation has become a way for some companies to differentiate themselves from others.  In a competitive labor market, this desire to provide innovative forms of compensation is understandable.  But any company thinking about cryptocurrency needs to be aware of the risks involved, including regulatory uncertainties and market volatility.

Form of Payment – Cash or Negotiable Instrument

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay minimum and overtime wages in “cash or negotiable instrument payable at par.”  This has long been interpreted to include only fiat currencies—monies backed by a governmental authority.  As non-fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies therefore fall outside the FLSA’s definition of “cash or negotiable instrument.”  As a result, an employer who chooses to pay minimum and/or overtime wages in cryptocurrency may violate the FLSA by failing to pay workers with an accepted form of compensation.

In addition, various state laws make the form of wage payment question even more difficult.  For example, Maryland requires payment in United States currency or by check that “on demand is convertible at face value into United States currency.”  Pennsylvania requires that wages shall be made in “lawful money of the United States or check.”  And California prohibits compensation that is made through “coupon, cards or other thing[s] redeemable…otherwise than in money.”  It is largely unclear whether payment in cryptocurrency runs afoul of these state requirements.

Of note, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) allows employers to satisfy FLSA minimum wage and overtime regulations with foreign currencies as long as the conversion to U.S. dollars meets the required wage thresholds.  But neither the DOL nor courts have weighed in on whether certain cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are the equivalent, for FLSA purposes, of a foreign currency.

Volatility Concerns

When compared to the rather stable value of the U.S. dollar, the value of cryptocurrencies is subject to large fluctuations.  Bitcoin, for example, lost nearly 83% of its value in May 2013, approximately 50% of its value in March 2020, and recently lost and then gained 16% of its value in the span of approximately 15 minutes one day in February 2021.

Such volatility can give payroll vendors a nightmare and can, in some instances, lead to the under-payment of wages or violation of minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA.

Tax and Benefits Considerations

Aside from wage and hour issues, the payment of cryptocurrency implicates a host of tax and benefits-related issues.  The IRS considers virtual currencies to be “property,” subject to capital gains tax rates.  It has also confirmed in guidance materials that any payment to employees in a virtual currency must be reported on a W-2 based upon the value of the currency in U.S. dollars at the time it was delivered to the employee.  This means that cryptocurrency wage payments are subject to Federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax.

For 401k plan fiduciaries, the Department of Labor recently issued guidance that should serve as a stern warning to any fiduciary looking to invest 401k funds into cryptocurrencies.  Specifically, the DOL wrote: “[a]t this early stage in the history of cryptocurrencies, the Department has serious concerns about the prudence of a fiduciary’s decision to expose a 401(k) plan’s participants to direct investments in cryptocurrencies, or other products whose value is tied to cryptocurrencies.”  Given the risks inherent in cryptocurrency speculation, the DOL stated that any fiduciary allowing such investment options “should expect to be questioned [by the DOL] about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty in light of the risks.”

Considerations for Employers

Given the combination of uncertain and untested legal risks, employers should consider limiting cryptocurrency compensation models to payments that do not implicate the FLSA or applicable state wage and hour laws.  For example, an employer might provide an exempt employee’s base salary in U.S. dollars and any annual discretionary bonus in cryptocurrency.

Whether investing in cryptocurrencies themselves to pay employees or utilizing a third-party to convert US dollars into cryptocurrency, employers should also stay abreast of the evolving tax and benefits guidance in this area.

Ultimately, the only thing that is clear about cryptocurrency compensation is that any decision to provide such compensation to employees should be made with a careful eye towards the unique wage, tax, and benefits-related issues implicated by these transactions.

Article By Daniel J. Butler and Kevin J. White of Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cryptocurrency and finance legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Happy New Year! – Prepare to Track Time of More Employees or Increase Salaries

The US Department of Labor finally released its highly anticipated changes to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This rule, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, will make more employees eligible for overtime because it updates the minimum salary thresholds necessary to exempt certain employees from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, as it will:

  • Raise the salary level from the current $455 per week to $684 per week (or $35,568 per year for a full-year worker)
  • Raise the total annual compensation level for highly compensated employees from the current $100,000 per year to $107,432 per year
  • Allow employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) that are paid at least annually to satisfy up to 10 percent of the salary level
  • Revise the special salary levels for workers in US territories and in the motion picture industry

This means all employees who are paid a salary falling below the new salary threshold will be non-exempt beginning on January 1, 2020. Said another way, these employees will be eligible for overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Remind Me About the Exemptions Affected

The FLSA generally requires employees to be paid at least minimum wage for every hour worked, and overtime (time and a half) for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Certain employees are “exempt” from the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements. Key here are the “white collar” exemptions, namely the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions, which depend on three things:

  1. The employee must be paid on a “salaried basis,” meaning the employee receives a fixed, guaranteed minimum amount for any workweek in which the employee performs any work. This means there can be no change in salary regardless of the hours worked.
  2. The employee must be paid a minimum salary of, as of January 1, 2020, $684 per week ($35,658 annually).
  3. However, paying a sufficient salary is not enough — the employee must also perform exempt job duties under one of the exemptions to satisfy this test. (Notably, the new rule did not make any changes to the job duties test, despite ambiguity and years of employer confusion.)

Let’s reiterate this important point again: to be exempt under one of these exemptions, all three prongs above must be satisfied.

I’m Busy — Can I Deal with This Later?

We wouldn’t recommend that. It’s time to start preparing because there are many moving parts when making classification decisions, and, as we all know, 2020 will be here sooner than we think. Also, we suspect these won’t be unilateral decisions made by the human resources department but that others will need to be involved; for most companies, that won’t happen overnight, as it may require significant analysis of the budgetary impact of potential salary increases before employee classifications can be finalized.

So what can you do now? We suggest you start by identifying employees who are currently classified as exempt but whose salaries fall below the new $684 weekly salary. Then, try to estimate the number of hours worked by the employee each workweek, which may be more difficult than it sounds, since exempt workers typically don’t track their time. Depending on the employee’s salary and the number of hours worked, you’ll want to consider whether you’re going to raise the employee’s pay to meet the new threshold or reclassify the employee as non-exempt and pay overtime; and, if you’re going to reclassify the employee, you’ll have to determine how and what the employee will be paid. You should go through the same analysis for those employees who are classified as exempt under the highly compensated employee exemption if their annual salary falls below the new $107,432 threshold.

Think you’re done? Wait, there’s more! Once you identify employees who will be reclassified, you’re going to need to craft your message to explain the changes and new expectations. You may need to develop new policies and/or train the newly non-exempt employees (and possibly their supervisors) on the company’s timekeeping policies as well as on the consequences for failing to follow them. Remember that the FLSA provides strict record-keeping requirements for employers to track the working hours of non-exempt employees. And you may be faced with the need to soothe the egos of employees who feel like being paid hourly is beneath them. (We know this sounds silly, but these morale concerns are real.)

Finally, if you have concerns about the classification of any of your other employees, or if it has simply been awhile since your employee classifications were reviewed, this is a prime time to conduct a general audit of your wage and hour practices. With many employees across the country, and likely within your own organization, being reclassified and becoming eligible for overtime come January 1, you’ll be able to make changes to the classification of other employees who may not meet any exemptions while drawing less attention.

© 2019 Jones Walker LLP

For more on the New DOL Overtime Rule, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Finally, the Final Part 541 Rule: $35,568 Is the New Salary Threshold for Exempt Employees

In its final part 541 overtime rule, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) set the salary level or amount test at $684 per week/$35,568 per year for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees of section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The total annual compensation test for a highly compensated employee is $107,432. The standard salary level test of $684 is comparable to the amount proposed earlier this year since the WHD used the same methodology as it applied in the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The total annual compensation level for highly compensated employees of $107,432 is lower than that proposed earlier this year in its NPRM because it is based on the 80th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried employees nationally.

According to the DOL, which released the final rule on September 24, 2019, this final part 541 overtime rule “has been submitted to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for publication, and is currently pending placement on public inspection at the OFR and publication in the Federal Register.” These new thresholds for exemption from both the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the FLSA go into effect on January 1, 2020.

This final rule is the culmination of a long-term effort to increase these salary and total annual compensation requirements—set forth in part 541 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations—which were last increased in 2004. These regulations define and delimit the exemptions for bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees. As we wrote previously, the DOL/WHD published a notice of proposed rulemaking in March 2019, with a 60-day comment period that expired on May 21, 2019. After its review of the comments, the DOL submitted its draft final rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget on August 12, 2019. OIRA completed its review of the final overtime rule and returned it to the DOL on September 13, 2019.

In addition to finalizing the salary amount test for exempt employees and the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees, the final rule also permits employers to apply non-discretionary bonus and other incentive payments to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level, provided such non-discretionary payments are paid at least annually or more frequently. Also in keeping with its proposed rule, the final overtime rule does not include a provision that automatically would increase the salary level test or total annual compensation amount on some regular or periodic basis. Most significantly, the final overtime (part 541) rule does not make any changes to any of the duties tests for these exemptions.

As you may recall in 2016, employer-aligned interests brought suit to challenge the final overtime rule issued during the final year of the Obama administration. The litigation was successful, and the 2016 final rule was enjoined by a federal district court in Texas and has never gone into effect. The 2019 final part 541 rule formally rescinds the 2016 final rule. At this juncture, it is difficult to predict whether employee advocates will mount a similar legal challenge to this rulemaking. While several have expressed interest in doing so, almost all of these advocates argue that the salary level test in the 2019 final rule is insufficient. Instead, they support a salary level requirement along the lines of that published in the 2016 rulemaking that set the salary level test at $913 per week/$47,476 per year for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees..

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more DOL regulation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment Law page.

Breaking Federal Developments in Labor and Employment September 2017

Salary Test for Exempt Status Invalidated

Under the prior administration the DOL had issued amendments to certain exemptions from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which would have dramatically increased the number of employees eligible for overtime pay to over 4 million workers within the first year of implementation. The amendments were to be effective on December 1, 2016, however their implementation was stayed by a federal judge last November, as reported in our November 2016 Client Alert.

The new regulations were to essentially double the salary threshold for employees who would be exempt from overtime payments, assuming they met one of the three exemptions, from $455 per week or $23,660 per year, to $913 per week or $47,476 per year. Under these regulations, even if employees performed duties that would otherwise indicate they were exempt from overtime, if they made less than $47,476 per year, their employers would have to pay them overtime regardless of their duties. Just last week, a federal judge in Texas invalidated the new regulations, and specifically found that, while a salary test was permissible, the minimum threshold of over 47K per year was too high, and in fact obviated the need for any other duties based analysis, which has always been at the heart of the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions.

Employer Tip

For the time being, employers can feel comfortable relying on the duties test to determine eligibility for overtime, however, the DOL has indicated that it is still looking at the minimum salary threshold, and employers should expect that threshold to increase from the current number of $23,660. Employers would be well advised to take a look at their currently classified exempt employees making between 24-35K per year to determine whether such employees truly meet the duties test, and whether such employees are being paid at appropriate levels.

EEO-1 Salary Reporting Requirements Blocked

The new EEO-1 forms with reporting information for 2017 were to have included salary information in addition to the usual reporting requirements. The EEOC was presumably intending to use such information to target companies for Equal Pay investigations and complaints. Reporting is still due using the EEO-1 forms in March 2018, but the OMB has just announced that the forms are not going to require the reporting of salary information by gender and other protected characteristics, so employers have a reprieve with respect to federal reporting requirements.

Employer Tip

Employers should be mindful that the state and federal equal pay laws are still applicable, and it is always a good idea to do a self-audit of comparative pay data based on gender, race, and other protected characteristics in order to ensure compliance with such laws. Please also refer back to our April 2017 Client Alert with respect to NY pay equity laws and the salary history ban that goes into effect next month for NY employers.

New I-9 Form in Effect September 18, 2017

Employers should be aware that a new I-9 form is going into effect on September 18th. The link to the new form can be found here.

This post was written by David I. Rosen of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. © Copyright 2017

Monopoly Money or the Real Deal? Exploring the Possibility of Paying Employees in Bitcoin

Bitcoin, the most popular form of digital or crypto-currency, is gaining traction as an investment vehicle and a way to pay for goods and services. More than 100,000 merchants worldwide now accept Bitcoin, allowing consumers to book a hotel stay, take a taxi, or buy a car.  The buzz around crypto-currency continues to grow as Bitcoin options will likely soon be traded on the futures exchange and regulators consider how to monitor Bitcoin transactions.

So what about paying employees in Bitcoin? Here are some things to consider before diving into the digital currency market.

What is Crypto-currency?

Virtual or digital currency is a digital representation of value that has no paper or coin equivalent. Crypto-currency such as Bitcoin uses encryption to control its creation.  Virtual currency is electronically created and stored and does not have the backing of a commodity, bank, or government authority. Additionally, virtual currency does not have the status of legal tender.  This means that a creditor can refuse virtual currency as payment for a debt.

Convertible virtual currency is a class of virtual currency that can be substituted for real currency. As of this week, 1 Bitcoin could be converted into to approximately $4,594.69 USD.

How Do I Get and Use Bitcoin?

Bitcoin is available online and may be purchased with cash, credit card, or wire transfer. A Bitcoin user would set up an online “wallet” that manages his or her transactions.  Each user has a unique address that is identified by a series of letters and numbers and each transaction in Bitcoin is also identified by a series of letters and numbers that can be viewed on a public ledger blockchain.info and shared with other devices on the Bitcoin network.

Due to the encryption of the transactions, the users have a certain level of anonymity, but the transactions are public. One of the advantages of Bitcoin is that there are no intermediaries, which gives user’s control to send payments from one party directly to another without a financial institution making fees lower.

To prevent paying twice with the same Bitcoin, each user has its own private key and a public key. Once a transfer is initiated, the transfer is submitted to the network encoded by the public key.  The acceptance occurs when the person accepts the amount on his or her private key.  The sender signs the transaction with the private key.  This log of transactions is continually downloaded by users on the network removing the need for a third-party clearinghouse to monitor the transactions.

Theoretically, paying an employee in Bitcoins would go through the same process. However, to comply with payroll deductions and filings, employers most commonly engage a payroll service experienced in Bitcoin that handles payroll deductions and filings.

What are the withholding implications of using Bitcoins as wages?

Just like wages paid in non-virtual currency, Bitcoin compensation would be considered W-2 wages for employees. Bitcoin is also subject to federal income tax withholding, FICA, FUTA, and the self-employment tax based on the fair market value of the Bitcoin on the date it was received. 

Do Bitcoin payments meet an employer’s minimum wage and overtime requirements?

Regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) require that wage payments be in “cash or a negotiable instrument payable at par,” meaning that Bitcoin payments may not satisfy an employer’s minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FSLA. An employer could pay in a hybrid of U.S. currency and Bitcoin to meet the federal requirements and pay anything above that amount in Bitcoin.  Several state wage and hour laws also require that wages be paid in U.S. currency so it is important to check both federal and state laws before paying employees in crypto-currency.

What about exempt employees?

Most exempt employees have minimum salary requirements under federal law. The minimum salary requirement under the FLSA salary basis test must be paid in U.S. currency or a negotiable instrument.  Like the minimum wage and overtime requirements, once that threshold is met, employers may pay employees the rest of the amount in Bitcoin.

Other concerns?

For nonexempt employees, there is some gray area as to how to value Bitcoins for the regular rate calculation for overtime purposes. The timing of the valuation may have a significant economic impact due to Bitcoin’s somewhat volatile nature.  Bitcoin valuation may also be a problem when calculating the regular and back pay if an employee is misclassified as exempt.  There may also be other issues tied to Bitcoin’s volatility, the administrative cost of converting wages to Bitcoin and security of Bitcoin wallets.  Before diving into the digital currency world, it is recommended that an employer consult with legal counsel to avoid any potential pitfalls.

This post was written by Taylor E. Whitten  of  Foley & Lardner LLP © 2017
For more Labor & Employment legal analysis go to The National Law Review

The U.S. Department of Labor Rolls Back Obama-Era Guidance on Joint Employers and Independent Contractors

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced today that it was rolling back an Obama-era policy that attempted to increase regulatory oversight of joint employer and contractor businesses.

Courts and agencies use the joint employer doctrine to determine whether a business effectively controls the workplace policies of another company, such as a subsidiary or sub-contractor. That control could be over things like wages, the hiring process, or scheduling.

Legal IT ConsultantIn a short statement, the DOL signaled that it was returning to a “direct control” standard. “U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta today announced the withdrawal of the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2015 and 2016 informal guidance on joint employment and independent contractors. Removal of the administrator interpretations does not change the legal responsibilities of employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, as reflected in the department’s long-standing regulations and case law.”

Until 2015, the DOL interpreted the joint employer doctrine to apply only to cases in which a business had “direct control” over another business’s workplace. In 2015 and then again in 2016, under then-Labor Secretary Tom Perez (currently the Democratic National Committee Chair), the DOL changed its interpretation to state that a business may be a joint employer even if it exerted “indirect control” over another’s workplace. The 2015 and 2016 guidance effectively expanded the conditions for when one business can be held liable for employment and civil rights law violations at another company. Critics of this “indirect control” language argued that it was ambiguous and threatened to throw franchise, parent-subsidiary, and independent contractor relationships between businesses into disarray. Companies, particularly franchises, were particularly concerned that they could face liability at workplaces they did not directly oversee or control.

However, the DOL’s announcement today rescinded its guidance on “indirect control” and also rescinded guidance on independent contractors, which essentially stated that the DOL considered most workers to be employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and that it was likely to apply a broad definition of “employee” and “employer” when investigating a company’s practices. This decision is a big win for businesses and business groups.

Despite the DOL’s reversal, the Obama-era standard can still be applied to businesses through the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), an independent agency that serves as the government’s main labor law enforcer. The NLRB considers a company jointly liable for its contractors’ compliance with the National Labor Relations Act if they have “indirect” control over the terms and conditions of employment or have “reserved authority to do so.” The NLRB has not rescinded its interpretation. President Trump has yet to pick nominees for the five-member board’s two open seats, which will likely affect the NLRB’s interpretation of the joint employer doctrine and many other NLRB rules, interpretations, and guidance.

The DOL’s guidance does not affect actions taken by other federal agencies.

This post was written by James R. Hays and Jason P. Brown  Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Fifth Circuit Rules Employer-Mandated Transit Time May Make Lunch Break Compensable

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, ruled recently that security guards’ “off-the-clock” meal periods may be compensable when they were required to travel for 10 to 12 minutes from their work stations to get their meals.  Naylor v. Securiguard, Inc., No. 14-60637 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2015) available here.

The private security guards in Naylor were required to leave their work sites and travel to other locations for meals or breaks in order to preserve the appearance of the worksite. The court reasoned that a jury could find this mandated transit time predominately benefited the employer, rather than the employee, making it compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The court noted that, when this mandated round trip travel time to break areas was only a few minutes in duration, it is “de minimis” and would not transform the 30-minute break to compensable time. However, at some point, employer-mandated travel time during an employee’s lunch break shortens the length of the break enough to make it a compensable “rest” period. Under the FLSA, “rest” periods of 20 minutes or less are generally compensable because they are considered to benefit the employer by rejuvenating the employee. Ten to twelve minutes of transit time cut too much into the “lunch breaks.”

Significantly, the court did not set a bright line rule for the precise number of transit minutes an employer may require away from the work station during a lunch break before the entire break becomes compensable.

The conversion to compensable time may entitle the employees to both compensation for the 30-minute meal periods and resultant weekly overtime once that time is added to other hours worked.

The ruling also raises questions of whether the mandatory transit time rationale applies to breaks required in other contexts, such as offsets to “30-minute” break requirements under collective bargaining agreements or state laws, or to other break activities, such as clothes changing, going through security or reassigning equipment. Providing employees written notice of which break-related activities are required and clearly stating their options to eat meals and engage in other break activities without mandatory transit or other activities that may reduce their meal periods might preclude any such issues.

Article By Robert E. Sheeder, Nancy M. O’Connor & Clayton M. Davis of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

© 2015 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP