Tag: wage and hour

Upcoming Proposed Changes to DOL’s Independent Contractor and Overtime Rules

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division is expected to propose new rules on independent contractor classification and overtime entitlement requirements in the coming weeks.  The proposals would alter the qualifications for certain employees to receive overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act when they work in excess of 40 hours in one week.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) grants the Department of Labor authority regarding overtime eligibility under the statute.  Currently and among other considerations, employees are non-exempt under the FLSA when they earn less than a guaranteed $684 per week or $35,568 per year.  If the DOL raises this salary threshold, as it is considering, an even larger swath of the workforce could be entitled to overtime payments.

The proposals follow President Biden’s withdrawal of former President Trump’s independent contractor rule in May 2021, which had not yet taken effect when President Biden took office.  However, United States District Judge Marcia A. Crone held in March 2022 that the DOL had not properly followed the requirements for withdrawal as set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act.  In so holding, Judge Crone gave the Trump administration’s independent contractor rule the effect of law as if it had gone into effect in March 2021, as scheduled. The Biden administration’s proposed changes to the existing rule will likely affect the salary basis and exemption requirements of the employee versus independent contractor misclassification analysis under the FLSA.  Employers should prepare for these upcoming changes by reviewing their employee job descriptions and time record procedures.  Employers should also engage counsel to re-examine their employee classifications at large to ensure their exempt employees are truly exempt under the current rules and that they understand that changes may need to be implemented when the new rules take effect.

Article By Holly H. Williamson and Savannah R. Gibbs of Hunton Andrews Kurth

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

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

A Very Simple Proposal to Tweak the FLSA to Benefit Both Employees and Employers

A number of years ago, I received a kind note around the holidays from my opposing counsel in a wage-hour class action, thanking me and my firm for being their “partners” in addressing employment issues.

Maybe the word he used wasn’t “partners,” but it was something close to it.

At first, I must admit that I thought he was joking.

Then I realized that this attorney, for whom I have great respect, got it.

He got that employers are not looking to violate employment laws, and that the attorneys who represent them are not trying to help their clients violate the laws.

He got that the opposite is true – employers are trying to comply with the laws, and their attorneys are trying to help them do so.  No employer is hoping to get sued.  Not one.  And lawyers advising employers on how to violate the laws will soon be looking for new clients.  Or a malpractice attorney.

The general public may not understand this notion, and, unfortunately, many employees and plaintiffs’ lawyers may not, either.

The desire of employers and their counsel to comply with the law plays out thousands of times every day, to the great benefit not just of employers, but of employees.

All management-side employment lawyers worth their salt have stories about how they worked with their clients to prevent a manager from terminating an employee’s employment, or cutting an employee’s pay, or implementing a problematic policy, by explaining the law and the potential repercussions.  Some lawyers have hundreds of these stories.

“You should give the employee another chance,” is an expression that may as well be on a tape recording, it’s used that often.  “Document the problem, sit down with the employee to explain how they need to do things differently, and give the employee another chance.”  “If you make that change, you’re walking right into a class action that you will have difficulty defending.”

Often – usually – employers will understand and follow their counsel’s advice once distanced from the heat of the moment.

They’re looking to do the right thing, to treat their employees fairly.  And, yes, to comply with the law.

It’s an approach that works in virtually every context except perhaps one – the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The FLSA actually works to dissuade employers from working with employees to correct many wage issues.

Why is that?

Because, unlike other employment laws, the FLSA generally doesn’t permit employers and employees to resolve wage disputes, short of the very litigation or agency complaint that neither employers nor employees really want.

The FLSA generally forbids the very amicable resolutions that would benefit both employers and employees.

And perhaps it’s time to change that.

In a perfect workplace, if employees have issues, whatever they might be, they would speak with their managers or with human resources and resolve their disputes amicably.

And, for the most part, the law not only permits them to do so, but encourages them to do so.

If employees believe they have been harassed, they can take their concerns to their employer and let their employer investigate and take corrective action, if appropriate.

If employees believe they have been discriminated against, they can share their concerns with their employer and resolve their disputes.

And if part of the resolution is a payment of some sum that the employer and employee agree to be fair, they can enter into a settlement agreement whereby those claims are resolved.  That is, the employee can accept some agreed-upon sum of money and sign a release.  And the employee can review the settlement agreement with his or her attorney beforehand in deciding whether the terms are fair.  If not, the employee won’t sign it.

But these very same employees who are able to amicably resolve virtually any dispute with their employers generally are not allowed to do so with FLSA claims.

If employees believe they were not paid for all time they worked, they cannot simply speak with their managers or human resources personnel to resolve the issue, get the problem fixed, and move on.  No, generally speaking, the only way they can resolve the issue is to file a lawsuit or a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL).

If employees believe their overtime pay was miscalculated, the only way they and their employers can resolve the claim is by suing or going to the DOL.

If employees believe that they have been misclassified as exempt, they can’t resolve the issue with their manager or human resources personnel.  No, they have to sue or file a DOL complaint.

And if employers identify an issue – an error on someone’s paycheck, or a concern that an employee might have been misclassified – the best they can do is to correct the issue and pay the employee, then sit back and hope that the employee doesn’t turn around and sue about the very issue the employer wanted to resolve, but couldn’t.

It’s a system that is built to increase litigation, often unnecessarily, at the expense of amicable resolutions of issues that may arise.

There is no good reason that employees can be trusted to resolve other employment disputes without litigation or an agency complaint, but can’t be trusted to do so with regard to wage claims.

None.

There is no good reason why employees can be allowed to amicably resolve a race or sex discrimination concern, for instance, but the same employees can’t be allowed to resolve a wage claim – not even as part of the resolution of the race or sex discrimination concern.

None.

The argument that an employee wouldn’t understand the nuances of the FLSA flies about as far as a turkey.  The FLSA is no more nuanced than Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act, and employees are allowed to resolve those claims outside of litigation or an agency complaint.

And don’t forget that employees could always have an attorney review a proposed FLSA settlement before they ever enter into it.  If it wasn’t fair, the attorney would surely tell the employee that and try to negotiate better terms, right?

Ultimately, it’s the employees’ decision.  If they don’t like the terms of a proposed resolution of FLSA claims, they can always file suit or a DOL claim then.

If you assume that employers and employees would like to have the opportunity to try to resolve their FLSA disputes prior to litigation or a DOL claim, then it is time to amend the FLSA to give them to right to do so.

And the blueprint for what legislation could look like is easy to find – it’s right in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  Or, more specifically, it’s right in the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA) amendments to the ADEA.

For reasons that remain somewhat mystifying, releases of age discrimination claims under the ADEA require specific terms that releases of other types of federal discrimination claims do not.  Among other things, such releases must specifically reference the ADEA, they must advise employees that they have the right to consult with an attorney, they must provide the employee with 21 days to consider the release (or 45 days under some circumstances), and they must provide the employees with 7 days to revoke an agreement after signing.

There is no reason that the FLSA couldn’t be amended to permit private settlements along the same lines – with a requirement that the release specifically reference the FLSA, that it advise employees that they have the right to consult with an attorney (or the DOL), that they have 21 days to consider the release, and that they may revoke the release within 7 days.

Don’t like the settlement proposed by your employer?  Don’t sign it.

Don’t understand it?  Talk with a lawyer or the DOL.

Need time to think about it?  You’ve got plenty of time.

Have second thoughts after signing the agreement?  Revoke it.

If such bells and whistles are sufficient to protect older workers who wish to settle age discrimination claims, they should be sufficient to protect all employees who wish to resolve FLSA claims.

Employees would benefit from a system that would encourage employers to address wage issues – and, not incidentally, by which they might not have to share 30-40% of their settlement with lawyers.

Employers would benefit from a system that would help them address those issues while avoiding litigation – saving on paying attorney’s fees to attorneys like me.

The courts and the DOL wouldn’t be clogged with claims that cry out for resolution.

The only people who wouldn’t benefit from this proposed amendment would be the lawyers.

And if you’re worried about us lawyers, you should call a doctor.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
For more articles on employment laws, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Why Not Just Make Everybody Hourly?

For more than 80 years, federal law has provided a general right to premium pay for working overtime hours, originally just for covered employees, then later for employees of covered enterprises.  The laws of more than 30 states contain a comparable requirement, though in some instances differing in the particulars.

This presumptive right to the overtime premium is, of course, subject to the familiar exemption construct whereby individuals whose employment satisfies one or more of the dozens of exempted categories fall outside the premium pay requirement.  Many of the most significant employment law battles over the past three decades have focused on whether certain groups of workers satisfied the criteria for an overtime exemption, resulting in businesses spending billions of dollars on judgments, settlements, and defense costs.  Think pharmaceutical sales representatives, insurance claims adjusters, financial advisors, mortgage loan officers, insurance and bank underwriters, automotive service advisors, various types of drivers, and more.  Hardly a week goes by without reports of seven-figure verdicts or settlements involving challenges to exempt status.

A separate set of disputes has arisen during that same time period regarding whether employers have correctly paid overtime premiums to their salaried non-exempt employees.  There are several different ways to pay overtime to salaried workers, and questions regarding the availability of the fluctuating workweek method have spawned numerous class and collective actions, as well as regulatory and statutory modifications, including a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in late 2019 and a federal final rule issued within the past year.

Apart from the lawsuits, employers have devoted countless hours of internal legal, human resources, and executive time—and expended countless millions of dollars on outside counsel fees—weighing the risks posed by classifying workers as exempt or maintaining the salaried non-exempt classification.

Given the risk, the time, and the expense, it’s tempting to ask: Why not just make everybody hourly?  Why do businesses continue to treat some employees as overtime-exempt, or pay non-exempt employees a salary, rather than just pay everyone on an hourly basis?

In our experience helping clients navigate these issues—and we emphasize that these are our own observations and not the result of any formal surveys or other quantitative assessments—the answer seems to be at least three-fold: (1) employee preference for exempt status, (2) employee preference for receiving a salary, and (3) the business advantage of predictable labor costs.

On balance, employees seem to prefer being exempt if given the choice.

In most organizations, exempt status tends to correlate with positions with higher pay, more generous benefits, and greater prestige than non-exempt roles.  People who have the option of moving from a non-exempt position to an exempt role ordinarily choose to take the exempt position—and make that choice with no hesitation.

This is so because, in addition to higher pay, exempt positions often offer access to further training and development opportunities, which in turn make further promotion and career progression possible.  Employers are more willing to provide these opportunities when doing so does not involve an hourly expense.

Another aspect of exempt status that many workers value quite highly is the freedom from punching a clock or otherwise having one’s working time scrutinized on a minute-by-minute basis.  Being accountable for one’s overall job performance, without having to worry about clocking in too early or too late, or taking a mandatory rest period, or eating a meal at the required time and for the required duration, makes people feel respected and valued.

Hourly pay reinforces two unfortunate perceptions in the workplace.  First, it serves as a reminder that one’s work is, at least to a certain extent, fungible with the work of others, and that a worker functions as just a cog in the machine.  Second, it functions as a divider between the “workers” who get hourly pay and the “bosses” who do not.  These perceptions can be especially corrosive with respect to individuals performing the types of work that at least arguably fall within the scope of the overtime exemptions built into federal and state law.

We certainly do not mean to suggest that employee choice trumps legal requirements.  Where the law dictates that an employee is overtime-eligible, compliance is not optional.  But where exempt classification is a plausible option, far more often than not the worker will prefer to be treated as exempt.  At least until the employee encounters trouble, retains a lawyer, and decides to seek additional money for work already performed.

The reality is that nobody ever has to take an exempt job.  There are a lot fewer exempt positions than non-exempt positions in our economy, and it is usually much easier for a worker to qualify for and to obtain a non-exempt role than an exempt one.  Yet workers continue to seek out exempt jobs.  Worker preference for exempt status is an important consideration for employers in hiring and retaining talent, and it is a big part of why exempt status remains a popular choice for employers notwithstanding the potential legal headaches.

Employees ordinarily prefer receiving a salary rather than hourly pay.

As a general matter, hourly workers receive pay for only the specific amount of time that they work, while salaried employees receive the same fixed amount of pay regardless of fluctuations in their hours.  Salaried non-exempt workers also receive additional pay if their hours cross an overtime threshold.

For workers, this difference between hourly pay and salary relates to overall economic security.  Most salaried workers seem to take comfort in knowing what their cash flow will be from month to month.  This consistent pay stream allows salaried workers to engage in more effective budgeting and retirement planning.

Hourly workers, by contrast, are subject to fluctuations in workload from week to week.  This can mean room for significant financial upside if work gets particularly busy, but it can also mean lighter paychecks for slow weeks.  The potential for pay to fluctuate downward puts hourly workers at greater risk of facing a temporary inability to pay current bills.

Of course, salaried workers also face the risk of job loss, furloughs, pay cuts, and the like in the even that their employer faces hard times.  But because of the rules governing salaried employment, employers are ordinarily quicker to reduce working hours for hourly employees than to take steps that reduce pay for salaried individuals.  If anything, during hard times employers that find themselves having to cut hours for hourly employees may nevertheless look for ways to assign some of the work those people would have performed to the salaried staff.

Particularly for risk-averse employees, the knowledge that there will be a constant, knowable stream of income each month eliminates a source of stress and worry.  Payment on a salary basis provides a measure of economic security lacking in hourly pay, and it operates as a kind of buffer protecting workers from suffering economic hardship in the face of short-term workload reductions.  The peace of mind that a salary provides to employees increases employee demand for salary pay, which in turn exerts pressure on employers to pay employees a salary when possible.

Exempt status and, to a lesser extent, salaried non-exempt status help employers plan better for labor costs.

Budgets are, of course, important not only for workers but for businesses.  Anticipating and planning for labor costs can be among the most important activities a business undertakes.  In particular, failing to budget sufficient funds for payroll can put a company into a severe financial crisis, just as failing to pay a worker’s earned wages can create serious hardship for the worker.

With salaried employees, a business knows in advance what it will have to spend on those employees over the course of a month, a quarter, or a year.  There may be opportunities to provide raises, bonuses, or other incentives if the employee or the company perform particularly well.  But the salary ordinarily defines the minimum financial commitment that the business will have to the employee, and this enables the employer to plan for that expense.

Pay for hourly employees can vary considerably, particularly if workloads change significantly throughout the year.  In theory, this type of challenge should work itself out in the long run, as a period of high workload typically results in higher revenue, at least at some point down the road.  But there is often a significant lag between when an employer experiences a spike in demand for hourly labor and when the business receives dollars in the door relating to that specific labor.  This can cause cash shortages for the business that, depending on the financial well-being of the employer, can strain resources, choke off other business opportunities, or even result in insolvency, including job losses for the workers.

Being able to set and to adhere to a labor budget, whether at the level of an individual manager or department or for an entire division or enterprise, is critical for many businesses.  Having workers on salary, especially when those workers are exempt, provides the sort of cost stability that businesses typically seek.

*  *  *

Critics of exempt status normally paint a picture of a greedy employer trying to cheat its employees by demanding more work without more pay, caricaturing exempt roles as a scam for businesses to bully workers into laboring for free rather than earning overtime pay for their hard work.  But that criticism misses the mark as it fails to explain why exempt roles remain in such high demand, even as non-exempt positions remain available and unfilled.  If exempt status were such a bad deal for employees, why would so many of them choose exempt roles?  Ultimately, the benefits to workers and employers alike will continue to make exempt status an attractive classification.

The same is true for salaried non-exempt work.  The employees who hold these roles are, in our experience, normally office workers, many of whom have a college degree, who may just miss the cut for exempt status.  These individuals value the safety net that a salary provides, as well as the status associated with being salaried rather than hourly.

In the end, not everybody wants the work experience to feel like a factory assembly line.  Those workers who want to be hourly, and who desire overtime eligibility, will have ample opportunity to obtain that type of employment.  But for the rest of us, exempt status and payment on a salary basis are here to stay.

©2021 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Paul DeCamp and Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more articles on hourly pay, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

 

COVID-19 Impact on Executive Compensation – Salary/Wage Reductions

Companies impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the concomitant widespread shelter in place orders, may be considering pay cuts for some or all of their workforce, either in addition to or instead of furloughs and layoffs.  In implementing salary or wage reductions, companies should be mindful of federal, state and local wage and hour and labor laws, consent and notice requirements under contractual agreements with individual employees or groups of employees, tax implications on subsequent “make-whole” or “make-up” payments, impact on employee benefit plan participation, governance considerations, and disclosure requirements for public companies.

Prior to implementing salary or wage reductions, companies should:

  • IDENTIFY affected employees and applicable state or local law:
    • Who are the employees affected by potential salary or wage reductions? Are they exempt or non-exempt? Are they part-time or full-time? How many employees are affected at any single location? Will company executives be impacted?
    • Is the salary or wage reduction being undertaken in connection with a reduction in hours? If so, is the reduction proportionate?
    • What state or local law is applicable to the employee’s employment?
    • What are the state and local requirements for the notice, if any, that must be provided to employees prior to or following a wage reduction?
    • Would a reduction result in the employee’s wage falling below the threshold level for exempt classification (currently $684 per week under federal law)?
  • REVIEW the potential effects of a salary or wage reduction under applicable law, contract, agreements, offer letters, and employee benefit plans:
    • Is the employee a party to an employment agreement, offer letter, or other agreement or arrangement that sets base salary? If so, does it expressly provide that base salary cannot be reduced, such that it would need to be amended?
    • Is the employee covered by an agreement, offer letter, or plan with a “good reason” or similar definition that would trigger severance, equity award accelerated vesting, or other rights as a result of a salary reduction? Is there an exception for across-the-board salary reductions and, if so, whether a limit or such reduction applies?
    • Does the employee participate in employee benefit plans and programs (e.g., group health plans, retirement plans, 401(k) plans, severance benefits, and vacation programs) that may be impacted by a reduction in hours and/or salary or wage reduction? For example, salary reductions may reduce an employee’s severance entitlement, pension accrual or matching contribution.
    • Does the company’s employee handbook address salary or wages during a leave of absence or furlough?
  • ACT to execute waivers, deliver notices, take action with respect to employee benefit plans and, for publicly traded companies, provide disclosure of the salary reduction where necessary:
    • Obtain consents to salary or wage reductions and waivers of “good reason” from employees as needed.
    • Provide advance notice in accordance with applicable state and local requirements.
    • Take any necessary actions under employee benefit plans and programs to continue or end coverage/participation, as applicable.
    • Prepare and file disclosure if/as required for public companies (e.g., Form 8-K, press release).
    • Consider creating a working group including representatives from HR, legal, and investor relations to coordinate actions and communications to internal and external interested parties.

 

Wage and Hour considerations; Notice considerations

A number of states and some cities require companies to provide employees with notice of salary or wage reductions and/or notice of hours reductions within a certain number of days in advance of the reduction or within a certain period following the company’s decision to take such actions. Companies with operations in multiple states should confirm with labor/employment counsel whether state or local notice is required. If notice is required, the content of the notice should be reviewed by counsel to confirm that the messaging of the notice is consistent with the company’s approach for labor, employment, employee benefit plan, contract, and tax purposes.

In considering whether to reduce salary or wages of employees classified as “exempt” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, companies should carefully analyze applicable federal and state law (for example, exempt employees who perform any work during a work week are generally entitled to full salary, subject to limited exceptions).  Companies should also analyze whether such a reduction would be reasonably likely to result in the employee’s wage being reduced below the threshold level for exempt classification ($684 per week under federal law and $1,125 per week under New York law). If so, companies should consult labor/employment counsel with respect to the best approach with respect to such employees.  Additionally, while outside the scope of this blog post, companies that have employees represented by a union or subject to a collective bargaining agreement, should review any limitations or prohibitions under those agreements.

Contractual agreements

Compensatory arrangements entered into by companies with their employees, particularly with respect to their executive teams, and other arrangements maintained by companies (e.g., severance plans, equity plans, incentive compensation plans) often include provisions that require a specified salary to be paid and/or allow the employee to terminate his or her employment for “good reason” as a result of a salary reduction.

A common provision in good reason definitions is a reduction in the employee’s base salary and/or target bonus opportunity.  Once an employee’s good reason provision is triggered, and assuming that the wages are not reinstated within a short period of time or the employee does not consent to such reduction, the employee could terminate his or her employment and be entitled to severance, accelerated equity vesting, or other rights.  Certain agreements contain exceptions to these provisions for company-wide reductions or similar reductions across the senior-executive team, sometimes up to an overall cap.

In addition, employment agreements or offer letters may expressly provide that an employee’s base salary cannot be reduced below the stated level. If so, a reduction without the employee’s consent could result in a contractual claim. Further, amendments to or terminations of certain broad-based plans providing for specified levels of compensation may be limited or delayed by the provisions of the plan or certain advance notice requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Companies considering broad-based salary or wage reductions should review their employment agreements, offer letters, and any other agreements that require payment of a specified salary or that contain good reason protections, and should discuss with executive compensation and benefits counsel whether reducing wages could trigger unintentional contractual or administrative claims or severance obligations.

Tax considerations

Companies considering providing for salary, wage, or other compensation reductions in connection with the opportunity of a later guaranteed or conditional (i.e., merit or performance based) “make-whole” or “make-up” payment should be cautious, as such an arrangement could potentially result in an impermissible deferral of compensation under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (“Section 409A”).  Generally speaking, Section 409A, which governs non-qualified deferred compensation arrangements, requires elections to defer compensation to be made no later than December 31 of the calendar year before the calendar year in which the employee performs the services to which the compensation relates (there are certain exceptions with respect to performance-based compensation that may be applicable to bonuses, but a discussion of these exceptions is beyond the scope of this blog post). If an employee’s consent is required for the compensation reduction and if in connection with such reduction, the company commits to paying additional compensation to the employee in a future taxable year, this type of arrangement could result in adverse tax consequences to the employee (including a 20% additional income tax in addition to applicable income tax). Companies should consult executive compensation and benefits counsel before implementing any program that includes a “make-whole” or “make-up” payment that could be paid in a calendar year following the calendar year of the compensation reduction.  Companies considering such programs should also consult executive compensation and benefits counsel to determine whether Congress, the Treasury Department, or the Internal Revenue Service have issued relief under Section 409A or other guidance in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread salary/wage reductions.

Employee benefit plan considerations

Salary or wage reductions, especially when coupled with layoffs or furloughs, may impact employees’ participation in employee benefit plans. Companies should discuss the impact of a salary or wage reduction with their employee benefits counsel. In particular, companies should:

(1) Review their group health plan and Affordable Care Act requirements to assess requirements for continued coverage, either as an active employee or through COBRA, and the cost for that coverage;

(2) Monitor FSA and Dependent Care FSA contributions to be sure they are properly made depending on the facts; and

(3) Consider the effect of salary or wage reductions on 401(k) contributions and outstanding loans.

Governance considerations

In implementing salary or wage reductions, companies should confirm that such actions are approved at the appropriate level for corporate governance purposes. While decisions to reduce salary and wages for rank-and-file employees may in some cases be made by company management, salary and wage reductions for senior management and executive officers and director fee reductions should be approved by the Compensation Committee or the full Board, as applicable. Companies should consult executive compensation and benefits counsel to review governance documents (including Compensation Committee charter) and prepare the necessary approvals.

Public company disclosure considerations

For public companies, Form 8-K rules generally require disclosure of information that is important to security holders, including disclosure of information under Regulation FD and events material to corporate governance and management.  Broad-based or selective salary or wage reduction programs may trigger disclosure on a Form-8-K (whether under Item 2.05 as steps taken in connection with exit or disposal activities, Item 5.02 as a material amendment of a material management contract or Item 7.01 / Item 8.01 as Regulation FD disclosure or voluntary disclosure) and filing requirements should be carefully reviewed and considered by public companies with counsel. Contracts entered into in connection with salary or wage reductions may be required to be filed with the company’s next quarterly or annual report.

Our executive compensation lawyers are tracking the companies that have been implementing salary and wage reductions and are available to discuss the alternatives that other companies have been implementing.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more on employment considerations amid the COVID-19 pandemic, please see the Coronavirus News section of the National Law Review.

New Jersey and New York Further Strengthen Wage and Hour Laws to Protect Employees: Part 1 – NJ Developments

On August 6, 2019, New Jersey substantially amended its wage and hour laws in several critical respects by, among other provisions, expanding the statute of limitations, increasing damages and criminal penalties, strengthening anti-retaliation provisions and, overall, making it easier and more lucrative for employees to prevail on wage and hour claims. The new “Wage Theft” Law is effective immediately, except for one provision identified below. Here is a summary of the key provisions:

    • The Statute of Limitations Expands from 2 to 6 years – The amendment triples the amount of time available to file claims for unpaid minimum wage and overtime payments, thereby tripling the potential damages available to employees. New Jersey now joins New York in implementing a 6-year statute of limitations for such claims. In contrast, the statute of limitations under federal law remains at 2 years or 3 years, depending on whether a willful violation was committed.

    • Liquidated Damages – The amendment provides that, in addition to having to pay earned, unpaid wages, employers also will be liable for liquidated damages of up to 200% of the wages owed. Previously, liquidated damages were not available under New Jersey law. A limited “good faith” defense will be available to first-time violators under certain circumstances.

    • Anti-Retaliation – The amendment expands the anti-retaliation provisions by making it a disorderly persons offense to take retaliatory action by discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee for making a complaint, instituting an action, or informing other employees about their rights concerning wages and hours of work.There is a rebuttable presumption of retaliation for adverse actions taken within 90 days of an employee filing a complaint with the Department of Labor or a court action. Liquidated damages are available for claims of retaliation.

    • Fines and Penalties – It is now a disorderly persons offense for an employer to (i) knowingly fail to pay wages, compensation or benefits when due, (ii) take retaliatory action, or (iii) fail to pay agreed-upon wages within 30 days of the date when payment is due. An employer who commits any such offense must pay wages due plus 200% of that amount in liquidated damages, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, a fine of $500 for a first offense (which increases for subsequent offenses) and, under certain circumstances, an additional penalty of 20% of wages due and/or imprisonment. The amendment provides for a broad definition of “employer” to include officers of a corporation and “any agents having the management of that corporation.”

    • Creation of a New Crime – The amendment creates a new crime of “pattern of wage nonpayment” for a person convicted of violating certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Code and/or wage and hour laws on two or more occasions. Though this is classified as a “3rd – degree” crime, there is no presumption of nonimprisonment. This provision will become effective three months from the August 6 enactment date.

    • Joint and Successor Liabilities – The amendment expands the circumstances under which organizations may now be held liable as joint or successor employers.

    • Failure to Maintain Records – The amendment provides that employers who fail to produce required records are subject to a rebuttable presumption that allegations by the employee concerning the time period the employee was employed and the wages that are due are true.

    • Employer Notice Requirement – The amendment imposes a new written notice obligation on employers. NJ employers will be required to distribute both to current employees and new hires a form the NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development will publish.

Take Aways

Wage and hour compliance has long been a vulnerable area for employers, and New Jersey employers must now contend with wage and hour protections that are among the strongest in the nation. It is more imperative than ever for New Jersey employers to (i) properly classify workers, where warranted, as employees rather than as independent contractors, (ii) properly classify employees as exempt or non-exempt from overtime requirements, (iii) timely pay employees all wages, compensation and benefits due, including overtime, and (iv) maintain required wage and hour records for at least 6 years.

 

© Copyright 2019 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.
For more wage-hour laws, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

But I’m in HR – What Do You Mean I Can Go to Jail?

Wage and hour laws.  Child labor laws.  OSHA laws.  Immigration laws.  When employers do not comply with these types of employment laws, civil charges and lawsuits are not the only things that can happen.  In what may come as an unwelcome surprise to employers, and to Human Resources, in particular, these laws have criminal penalties embedded in them too.

For example, willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) – the federal wage and hour law that also contains certain child labor provisions – may be prosecuted criminally, with violators subject to potential fines of up to $10,000.  Various states also have their own wage and hour laws, and many of them include criminal sanctions.

Although the Department of Justice and administrative agencies enforce laws like the FLSA less or more vigorously, depending on who is president, a case from 2013, during the Obama administration, is instructive.  In that FLSA matter, a company and its owner, plant manager, and office manager were all convicted of various felony counts.  The facts were extreme, including that the employer had a history of FLSA violations, submitted false payment evidence to the Department of Labor during its investigation, demanded kickbacks from workers while continuing to fail to pay overtime, and kept a second set of time records hidden from investigators.  These facts resulted in criminal convictions for the company and three of its management individuals.

The Department of Justice also enforces certain immigration laws that carry potential criminal penalties for employers.  These laws are especially noteworthy in today’s atmosphere of heightened immigration enforcement.  Employers who unlawfully employ persons who are not authorized to work in the United States could be subject to criminal prosecution.  Federal and state OSHA laws also contain criminal in addition to civil penalty provisions.

We know that Human Resources professionals can sometimes have a hard time convincing other leaders in an organization to listen to their suggestions.  It can be very frustrating, for example, when HR knows that certain employment policies need to be revised or certain payment methods may not comply with legal requirements, and yet other members of the management team will not make the changes.

One way HR can help guide managers who need to make decisions about certain employment policies – and to get their attention – is to point out that not only can failure to follow certain laws result in expensive civil lawsuits; but sometimes they can also result in criminal prosecution.  Though rare, these prosecutions and convictions do happen – something clearly all HR and all managers want to avoid.

Are you likely to go to jail as an HR professional under these laws?  Not likely.  Nonetheless, HR professionals should be aware of the possibilities and be prepared to discuss them when educating management.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more on employment matters, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

The Ninth Circuit Asks the California Supreme Court to Weigh in on Bag Checks

On August 16, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order certifying a question regarding an important wage and hour issue to the California Supreme Court: Is time spent on an employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing required exit searches of bags or packages voluntarily brought to work for purely personal convenience by employees compensable as “hours worked” under California law?

The question arose in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., an appeal in a wage and hour class action brought against Apple, Inc., by current and former nonexempt California retail store employees. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought compensation for time that they spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches whenever they left Apple’s retail store locations, pursuant to the company’s Employee Package and Bag Searches policy. The at-issue policy, which is similar to ones in place at many other large retailers, required that employees undergo unpaid, manager-performed bag/package checks before leaving the stores—at breaks or at the end of their shifts.

In July 2015, a district court certified the case as a class action. However, in November 2015, the district court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and ruled that time spent by class members waiting for and undergoing exit-related bag searches pursuant to Apple’s policy was not compensable as “hours worked” under California law because such time was neither “subject to the control” of the employer nor time during which the class members were “suffered or permitted” to work.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that employees are under the control of the employer while waiting for and undergoing the bag checks because they are required whenever entering or leaving the premises. Apple countered that the time is not compensable because employees are not required to bring bags to work, and may avoid the searches altogether by not bringing a bag or package to the workplace. In its order certifying the issue for the California Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit noted that Apple’s position “finds strong support” in the seminal California Supreme Court decision Morillion v. Royal Packing Co., 22 Cal. 4th 575 (2000), in which the court held that time spent by employees using employer-mandated transportation to get to a worksite was compensable, while noting that time spent on “optional free transportation” would not be compensable. However, the Ninth Circuit expressed questions about whether differences in context—i.e., employer-provided transport to and from the workplace versus searches at the worksite—rendered Morillion distinguishable.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court previously determined that similar bag checks were not compensable in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (2014), the California Supreme Court has not addressed the compensability of bag checks under California’s wage and hour laws, which involve a somewhat different definition of compensable work time. As the Ninth Circuit noted in its order, the consequences of any interpretation of California law with respect to bag searches “will have significant legal, economic, and practical consequences for employers and employees” throughout California and will materially affect the outcome of many pending lawsuits. For the time being, employers should consult with qualified employment counsel to mitigate risk while we wait for the California Supreme Court to weigh in.

This post was written by Philippe A. Lebel of  Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
Read more on litigation of wage and hour issues at the National Law Review.

How Does Supreme Court’s Remand of Transgender Discrimination Case Impact Wage-and-Hour Class Actions?

supreme court transgender discriminationOn March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court, in a one-sentence summary disposition, remanded the case of Gloucester County Sch. Bd. v. G.G. to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit “for further consideration in light of the guidance document issued by the Department of Education and Department of Justice on February 22, 2017.”  For those unfamiliar with Gloucester County, the case involves a public school’s obligations to a transgender student under Title IX and, in particular, whether Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination requires a school to treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity when providing sex-separated facilities, such as toilets, locker rooms, and showers.

So what does this have to do with wage-and-hour class actions?  As it turns out, in Gloucester County, the Supreme Court was poised to consider the scope, and perhaps the continuing viability, of the Auer doctrine, which frequently comes into play in wage-and-hour litigation.  Under the Auer doctrine, courts generally will enforce an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless that interpretation is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”  In wage-and-hour class actions, this often results in cases being decided based on guidance issued by the Department of Labor through opinion letters, its Field Operations Handbook, and other sources.

This deference to the Department of Labor can be frustrating for employers and attorneys practicing wage-and-hour law because the guidance issued by the Department of Labor often changes with each new Presidential administration.  For example, an entire industry can decide to classify a group of employees as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements based on an opinion letter from the Department of Labor only to learn years later that the Department has withdrawn the opinion letter after the start of a new administration.  If courts are obligated under Auer to defer to these shifting interpretations issued by the Department of Labor, it can create a great deal of uncertainty for employers seeking to comply with the FLSA and for parties litigating wage-and-hour class actions.

In the long term, eliminating or narrowing the Auer doctrine could provide more consistency for employers and litigants.  With the remand of Gloucester County, that is unlikely to happen in the near future.  In the short term, however, the continuing viability of the Auer doctrine may benefit employers who are hopeful that the Department of Labor, under the Trump administration, will take a more employer-friendly view of certain regulations.  For now, the Department of Labor remains free to shape FLSA through opinion letters and other guidance documents and without having to resort to the time-consuming process of issuing revised regulations.

ARTICLE BY Jeffrey L. Rudd  of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2017

Winter Is Coming —Wage and Hour Considerations During Weather-Related Emergencies

winter weather winter is comingWith winter storms around the corner, it’s the right time to revisit employer rights and responsibilities during a weather-related emergency or other major disruption.  We discuss below some typical scenarios that you are likely to face during weather-related or other emergencies, and the consequences under the wage and hour laws.

“Our office was closed for a few days because of the storm.  Do we have to pay our employees for those days?”

Non-exempt (i.e., overtime-eligible) employees generally have to be paid only for hours they actually work.  So if a non-exempt employee cannot work because your office is closed—or because the employee cannot make it into the office because of weather-related conditions—the wage and hour laws do not require you to pay the employee for non-working time.  On the other hand, a non-exempt employee who performs work remotely (say, from home, from a temporary site, or from a coffee shop) is entitled to pay for the time worked.

An exception exists for salaried non-exempt employees, who may—depending on the terms of their agreement with the employer—expect to receive their full weekly salary regardless of how many hours they actually work that week.

Exempt employees (i.e., employees not entitled to overtime pay) generally receive their full salary for any week in which the office is closed for less than a full workweek.  Employers who prorate an exempt employee’s weekly salary because of office closure risk losing the exemption for the week in question—a consequence that may or may not be material depending on how many hours the employee works that week.  If your office is closed for an entire workweek, you can inform all employees of the closure and you need not pay them for that week (unless they are working remotely).

Be sure to check any agreements with exempt employees—as well as offer letters, policies, or other statements regarding the nature of their pay—which may also limit your ability to prorate salary during office closures and/or give rise to pay claims.

 “Our office was open, but some of our staff could not make it in because of the weather.  Do we need to pay them?

As described above, non-exempt employees generally must be paid only for hours they actually work, but salaried non-exempt employees may have a contractual right to receive their full salary for any week in which they perform any work.

Exempt employees who are absent from work for one or more full days because of inclement weather, including because of transportation difficulties, are considered to be absent for personal reasons (if the office is otherwise open).  Absent a contractual right to be paid, they do not have to be paid for the days they fail to report to work, and your failure to pay them for such days will not jeopardize their exempt status.  Deductions for partial-day absences under these circumstances, however, will violate the salary basis rules and jeopardize the exemption for that week.

“Because of flooding or another dangerous condition, we had to close our office after a number of employees had already reported for work.  Do we have to pay them for the day?” 

Exempt employees who report to work but are turned away or sent home by their employer generally must receive their salary for that day.  Non-exempt employees who report to work but are turned away or sent home must be paid for all hours actually worked that day.  In addition, some states have “reporting pay” or “call in” pay laws that require employers to pay non-exempt employees a minimum number of hours’ pay for any day in which they report to work.

“Our payroll records were destroyed in the storm, or are inaccessible.  How do we pay our employees?”

Exempt employees paid on a salary basis should receive their normal salary payment (less any permissible full-day deductions).  For hourly non-exempt employees, use a reasonable method to determine the number of hours worked, such as:

  • Asking the employees themselves to submit a certified time sheet indicating the number of hours they worked;

  • Recreating hours worked through electronic records (g., card/ID swipes or log-ins/log-outs);

  • Making assumptions based on an employee’s fixed or regular schedule of hours;

  • Asking managers to verify hours worked; or

  • Some combination of the above.

“Can we require our employees to use available vacation days or other paid time off during a weather-related office closure or absence?”

Yes.  Under federal law and the laws of most states, employers are not required to provide vacation benefits or other paid time off to employees.  Such benefits are generally a matter of agreement between employer and employee, or set forth in the employer’s handbook or policy.  Under these circumstances, there is no prohibition on an employer giving PTO and requiring that it be taken on specific days.  So long as it’s permitted under the applicable PTO policy or agreement, employers can reduce an employee’s accrued PTO bank for either partial or full day absences, without violating the wage and hour laws.

“Can we give our staff additional paid or unpaid time off to assist in recovery or relief efforts?”

Employers can grant their employees additional paid and unpaid time off for any reason, including assisting with storm-related recovery and relief efforts.

Employees who are assisting in relief efforts as part of the National Guard or Armed Forces Reserves may have additional rights under federal and state law.

Because of the snow, it took our employees twice as long to commute to work as opposed to most other days.  Do we need to pay them for the additional commute time?”

Time spent in an employee’s normal commute from home to work at the beginning of the workday, and from work to home at the end of the workday, is not considered time worked and need not be paid.

“Some of my employees are members of a union.  Do these rules apply to them as well?”

Collective bargaining agreements generally cannot waive or reduce the protections available to employees under federal, state, or local wage and hour laws.  Collective bargaining agreements can, however—and often do—impose different and additional pay, time off, and other obligations on employers.  Employers with unionized employees should consider all applicable agreements when analyzing their rights and responsibilities in the context of a weather-related emergency or other “force majeure” event.

“We want to do more for our employees, to go above and beyond what the law requires. What are some things we can do?”

There are many options available to an employer who wants to do more for its employees, including:

  • Granting additional paid or unpaid time off

  • Allowing employees to donate accrued paid time off to other employees (i.e., leave-sharing plans)

  • Allowing affected employees to work remotely for some period of time

  • Making emergency advances of salary or loans

  • Setting up disaster-relief programs or payments

  • Making certain payments to assist disaster victims that can be excluded from their taxable income

  • Setting up food and clothing drives

Final Thoughts

Employers making decisions about scheduling, pay, and time off during weather-related emergencies and disruptions should bear in mind the potential implications on employee morale.  Flexibility and support in times of need—or the absence of them—are likely to be remembered long after the storm passes.

As always, check state and local laws—as well as your contracts and policies—before making any final decisions regarding wages, hours, or time off.

ARTICLE BY Allan S Bloom & Arielle E. Kobetz of Proskauer Rose LLP
© 2016 Proskauer Rose LLP.