Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the login-customizer domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php:6131) in /home1/natiopq9/public_html/wp-includes/feed-rss2.php on line 8
working Archives - The National Law Forum https://nationallawforum.com/tag/working/ Legal Updates. Legislative Analysis. Litigation News. Wed, 19 May 2021 17:55:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://i0.wp.com/nationallawforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/cropped-grey-temple-Converted.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 working Archives - The National Law Forum https://nationallawforum.com/tag/working/ 32 32 111745018 Working Through Lunch: An Update on the Legal Risks https://nationallawforum.com/2014/05/27/working-through-lunch-an-update-on-the-legal-risks/ Tue, 27 May 2014 19:44:05 +0000 http://nationallawforum.com/?p=7875 Regular readers of this blog know that we’ve previously alerted you to the risks of using timekeeping software that automatically deducts the lunch hour from employees’ paychecks.  As we’ve explained before, such software can expose employers to liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act because, for one reason or another, employees sometimes work through lunch. And, even … Continue reading Working Through Lunch: An Update on the Legal Risks

The post Working Through Lunch: An Update on the Legal Risks appeared first on The National Law Forum.

]]>
Barnes Burgandy Logo

Regular readers of this blog know that we’ve previously alerted you to the risks of using timekeeping software that automatically deducts the lunch hour from employees’ paychecks.  As we’ve explained before, such software can expose employers to liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act because, for one reason or another, employees sometimes work through lunch. And, even if an employer has a system in place for employees to request pay for lunchtime work, that is no “get out of jail free card,” because employees who bring FLSA lawsuits commonly argue that they did not use – or were discouraged from using – the system.

A lawsuit that was filed earlier this month in Texas federal court gives us another reason to sound the alert.  In Corcione v. Houston Methodist, the plaintiff alleges that she – and a class of some 5,000 nurses, nurses assistants, patient care assistants and other employees at seven different medical facilities – were required to keep their cellphones on hand during their meal breaks in case they were needed to respond to emergencies. And, even though the employers had systems in place for requesting pay for lunchtime work, the plaintiff claims that managers discouraged employees from making such requests. The plaintiff seeks to recover the unpaid wages (for the time claimed to have been worked, including overtime pay), liquidated damages, and legal fees.  In other words, the plaintiff wants tens of millions of dollars.

A policy requiring nurses (and similar employees) to be available so that they can respond to emergencies probably seems reasonable to you, and we feel the same way. Work “emergencies” aren’t limited to the medical field, of course, and many other types of employers have similar policies – written or unwritten. If you’re one of them, just remember that the ramifications of such policies can land you on the wrong side of the FLSA if you’re not careful. We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again:  Work time must be compensated.  Even if that “work time” comes during what – on a normal day – would have been “lunch time.”

Article By:

Of:

The post Working Through Lunch: An Update on the Legal Risks appeared first on The National Law Forum.

]]>
7875