Showing 9 posts in Unpaid Wages.

The 12 Days of California Labor & Employment Series – Day 10: Civil Penalties for Unpaid Wages

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law daily and its impact on California employers. On the tenth day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: ten pipers piping and AB 673.

California law currently provides for a civil penalty to be imposed on employers who fail to pay the wages of an employee as provided in specified provisions of the Labor Code. Current law requires the Labor Commissioner to recover that penalty as part of a hearing held to recover unpaid wages and penalties or in an independent civil action. In the independent civil action, a specified percentage of the penalty recovered is to be paid into a fund within the Labor and Workforce Development Agency dedicated to educating employers about state labor laws, and the remainder be paid into the State Treasury to the credit of the General Fund. More ›

California Appeals Court Confirms Constitutionality of Piece-Rate Compensation Statute

In Nisei Farmers League vs. California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, California’s Fifth Appellate District confirmed the constitutional validity of Labor Code section 226.2, a recently enacted law providing that employees paid on a piece-rate basis must be paid at least minimum wage, and must be paid for rest and recovery periods and “other nonproductive time” separate from any piece-rate compensation. Under a piece-rate system, employees are not paid by the hour, but rather based on activities, task or units of production completed. For example, employees are paid by the number of widgets they produce. The goal of the statute was to make sure employers who pay under a piece-rate system also comply with all minimum wage law requirements that apply to hourly workers. More ›

Department of Labor Removes 80-20 Tipped Work Rule

The federal Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) provided updated guidance on its application of the “tip credit” rule for tipped employees who perform non-tip-generating tasks. More ›

Massachusetts Employees Need Not Wait 90 Days to File Wage Act Claim Says 1st Circuit

In Lawless v. Steward Health Care System, LLC, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered a novel question: whether an employee suing for violation of, M.G.L. c. 149, §§ 148, 150 (the “Wage Act”), could recover under the statute despite filing her lawsuit before receiving permission from the Attorney General or waiting 90 days after notifying the Attorney General of her claims. It answered the question yes, rejecting the employer’s position that the Wage Act provided for a grace period of up to 90 days. More ›

California Court Okays Hour Rounding Policy

In  AHMC  Healthcare,  Inc.  v.  Letona,  decided  earlier  this  week,  a  California  state  of  appeals  court  considered  an  employer's  use  of  a  time  clock  rounding  system  and  whether  it  violated  California  Labor  Law.  While  it  is  a  California  case,  it  rests  on  the  federal  regulation  governing  time  rounding  found  in  29  CFR  §  785.48  and  is  thus  an  instructive  case  for  all  employers  who  use  or  are  thinking  about  adopting  a  rounding  policy.  More ›

Implement a Waiting Period for Paid Vacation in California? Yes You Can.

California employers know they must compensate any employee unused and vested vacation pay upon separation from employment. Once vacation is vested, the right to vacation pay cannot be forfeited. But what happens when vacation rights have not vested? The Court of Appeals recently decided this question in Minnick v. Automotive Creations, Inc. More ›

Seventh Circuit Upholds Tip Credit Pay for Related, Non-Tipped Duties

As those in the restaurant industry know well, federal and state law allow employers to pay tipped employees less than the required minimum wage with the expectation they will receive enough tips to make up the difference. This is referred to as a "tip credit." There has long been a battle within wage and hour suits over whether and when an employee paid under the tip-credit can still be paid the below minimum wage rate while performing "side-work" or non-serving duties that do not directly result in tips from customers. In a decision issued on July 15, 2016, the Seventh Circuit helped clarify the line, finding that an employer did not violate wage laws by paying its servers under the tip credit for side work those servers performed. More ›

Overtime Exemptions Shrink

The hour has arrived. Last summer, the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor announced substantial revisions to federal regulations delineating who is exempt from overtime pay. After almost a year of waiting (and over 290,000 comments to the draft rule), the DOL announced this week that it will be publishing the final form of its revised overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This final publication will occur on Monday, May 23, 2016, but the pre-publication version is publicly available now. More ›

Whistle while you work… on getting dressed: Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Hormel employees to be paid for time putting on clothing and safety gear

Like most employers, Hormel Foods paid its employees from the time they punched-in to the time they punched-out. Prior to punching the clock, manufacturing employees were required to dress in a clean white jumpsuit, boots, hard hat, eye protection, hearing protection, and hair net. The reverse process was repeated after the employees punched out at the end of their shift. Each employee spent almost six minutes per day off the clock "donning" [putting on] and "doffing" [taking off] required clothing and equipment. More ›