Showing 60 posts in FLSA.

Court Revives DOL's Expanded Overtime and Minimum wage Rules for Home Health Care Workers

August 27, 2015 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On August 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Home Care Association of America v. Weil reversed a lower court decision and upheld the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) 2013 regulatory change regarding domestic service workers who provide companionship services or live-in care.  More ›

Everything must go? Dealership's Service Advisors not Exempt from Overtime

March 27, 2015 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Classifying employees as exempt or non-exempt can prove to be an arduous task for some employers. For others, however, the classification is easy, particularly where the state or federal authorities expressly spell out the employees at issue. That still proved problematic for one California employer, however. As demonstrated by this week's Ninth Circuit opinion, even seemingly obvious classifications are not always so.  More ›

Employment Status of Cosmetology Students is not so cut and Dry

March 15, 2015 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The issue of whether "interns" are employees entitled to wages has been at the forefront of employment litigation over the past couple of years. Similar to interns, cosmetology students are now filing suits against their schools, claiming entitlement to wages for hours spent performing cosmetology services as a part of their curriculum and in order to obtain their state licenses. Not surprisingly, courts across the country have reached different results in this dispute.  More ›

11th Circuit: Employer Aware of Employee's Underreported Hours Cannot rely on "Unclean Hands" Defense in FLSA Case

January 17, 2015 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Santonias Bailey, a TitleMax employee, underreported his hours worked.  His supervisor instructed him to do so, and the supervisor would also himself routinely revise Baily’s time records to reflect even less hours worked.  Bailey’s self-underreporting of hours violated TitleMax’s policy, however, which requires employees to verify time worked; further, his failure to report his supervisor for the supervisor’s instructions and revisions violated a second TitleMax policy relating to reporting of problems with supervisors.  More ›

Sixth Circuit: Interruptions During meal Period do not Automatically Render time Compensable

January 8, 2015 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Yesterday we told you about the California Court of Appeals' decision in which the court found that it was not unlawful for an employer to require its security guards to be "on call" during rest periods. The 6th Circuit reached a similar conclusion, but with respect to meal periods.  More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Employees' Security Screening Compensation Claims

December 9, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a decision impacting businesses across the country, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that time spent by warehouse employees waiting to leave work through a security screening checkpoint is not compensable. The employees were working at a retail warehouse for a temporary staffing services company, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., and filed a class action lawsuit alleging that they should be compensated for the time they were required to go through an anti-theft security checkpoint after their shift ended. The employees alleged that the waiting "postliminary" activity time was up to twenty five minutes and involved removing belts, keys and phones as well as passing through a metal detector. More ›

First Circuit Analyzes Whether Employees' Fluctuating pay Meets FLSA's Salary Test

November 11, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A recent First Circuit decision demonstrates how, in determining whether employees meet the FLSA's salary requirement,courts can look at how the employees are actually paid rather than any theoretical payment plan in determining whether employees meet the salary requirement of the exemption tests. In the case, two employees who worked as project managers for Saint Consulting claimed that were misclassified as exempt employees because the way in which they were paid did not meet the minimum salary test required for an exemption under the FLSA. More ›

Employer Prevails on Misclassification Claim Where Employee Fails to Prove Hours Worked

November 10, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Greg Holaway worked as a Field Service Engineer for Stratasys, Inc. He was categorized as exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requiring the payment of overtime. Even though his title was "Engineer," his position was closer to that of a customer service technician who installed machines and maintained previously installed machines. He was responsible for customers in various states. On February 8, 2012, Holaway sent an email to other Field Service Engineers complaining about being expected to work 45 to 60 hour weeks without overtime pay. He was terminated shortly after he sent the e-mail, ostensibly for violating the company's online protocol. More ›

Court Holds that Restaurant Owner may be Personally Liable for FLSA Violations

November 5, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A new federal case out of Illinois demonstrates the extreme importance of complying with wage and hour laws, especially where the law provides for individual liability against those who control the terms and conditions of employment. More ›

Court Holds that Franchisor is Not Employer Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act

August 1, 2014 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Benjamin Orozco worked as a cook in a Craig O's Pizza and Pasteria franchise which was owned by Sandra and Arnold Entjer. Craig and Roxana Plackis owned Roxs Enterprises, Inc. ("Roxs"), which was the franchisor of Craig O's. Initially, the Entjers paid Orozco a salary of $1,200 bi-weekly. In 2007, his wages were reduced to $1,050 per week, and later, in 2011, they changed his pay to $11 per hour. Orozco quit and filed suit against the Entjers, claiming he was entitled to overtime pay and that he was not properly paid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Orozco ultimately settled with the Entjers but then added as a party Craig Plackis, the franchisor. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Orozco finding, in part, that Plackis was Orozco's employer. Plackis moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, and as a result, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives