An Overview of Wage Hour Laws and Litigation: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Back Wage Claims

Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:41:56 GMT

Wage Hour laws and regulations are complex, non-intuitive, and constantly changing. Mistakes in wage and salary administration have led to class actions resulting in six and seven figure recoveries against the most sophisticated employers - banks and major industrial giants as well as smaller employers without in-house legal and high level Human Resources officials. Peter M. Panken, Lauri Rasnick and Douglas Weiner in our New York Office have recently authored an article in conjunction with a major national Continuing Legal Education program in Washington entitled: “ An Overview of Wage Hour Laws and Litigation: Avoiding the Pitfalls of Back Wage Claims” which outlines the major traps employers can fall into and outlines ways to avoid the problems before litigation begins.

The (Sort Of) Hired Help: Wage and Hour Implications of Hiring Unpaid Interns

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:04:43 GMT

By: Amy Traub and Desiree Busching

On February 1, 2012, a former intern of the Hearst Corporations’ Harper’s Bazaar filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and applicable state laws by failing to pay minimum wage and overtime to interns. The use of unpaid interns is a widespread practice, especially in the retail, publication, and real estate industries, as well as in Hollywood. In fact, in September 2011, a similar lawsuit was filed against Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., claiming that the company used unpaid interns so it could make the film “Black Swan” more cheaply. As reported in the book Intern Nation: How to Earn Nothing and Learn Little in the Brave New Economy, internships save firms roughly $600 million every year.

Aside from the prestige that may accompany an unpaid internship for a dream employer, recession markets lead many job seekers to try to get their foot in the door by interning without pay. Similarly, companies often view unpaid internships as a win-win: they get additional staffing without increasing their budgets and can train them for possible future employment without incurring any costs, while the interns get field experience to help them land a paying job. As the complaint against the Hearst Corporation asserts, “[u]npaid interns are becoming the modern-day equivalent of entry-level employees.”

But as the recent complaints against the Hearst Corporation and Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. demonstrate, companies utilizing the services of unpaid interns must tread carefully or they could face significant wage and hour liability, especially in light of the increased focus on unpaid interns in the legal arena. Federal and state wage and hour laws provide multi-factor tests to determine whether an intern is actually an “intern,” or if he/she should instead be classified as an “employee,” and thus entitled to compensation.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), for example, uses the following six-factor test to determine whether such an individual qualifies as an “intern” under the FLSA:

The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If the above factors are met, then the intern is not entitled to minimum wage or overtime under the FLSA. However, many states have their own wage and hour laws with additional factors to consider in determining whether a worker is an “intern,” and thus not entitled to compensation, or an “employee,” who must be paid in accordance with minimum wage and overtime laws. For example, New York utilizes an 11-factor test, and California, which also previously had an 11-factor test but departed from that precedent in April 2010, now employs a 6-factor test similar to that used by the DOL.

Therefore, in order to protect themselves from wage and hour liability for use of unpaid interns, employers must be sure to check both federal and state wage and hour laws, and should speak with counsel if they are unsure if interns are being assigned appropriate work or are otherwise classified appropriately under applicable laws.

The administrative exemption from overtime pay continues to plague employers: Is there a cure?

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:50:22 GMT

By: John F. Fullerton, III, Douglas Weiner, and Meg Thering

The plague of lawsuits for unpaid overtime compensation by employees who claim that they were misclassified by their current or former employer as “exempt” from overtime under the “administrative” exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act shows no signs of receding. These lawsuits continue to present challenges to employers, not just in terms of the burdens and costs of defending the cases, but in the uncertainty of the potential financial exposure.

Read the full article online.

The Department of Labor Issues Proposed Rule Expanding FLSA Coverage to Companionship and Live-In Workers

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:19:26 GMT

By: Dean Silverberg, Evan Spelfogel, Peter Panken, Douglas Weiner and Donald Krueger

Reversing its prior stance, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposes to extend the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to domestic workers who provide in-home care services to the elderly and infirm. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend the Companionship and Live-In Worker Regulations. In 1974, when domestic service workers were first included in FLSA coverage, the DOL published regulations that provided an exemption for such “companions”, whether employed directly by the families of the elderly and infirm, or by a third party employer/staffing agency. Now, heeding calls from organized labor and certain members of Congress, the DOL is moving to close this “loophole.” See“Is the Department of Labor Considering a Revision to the Domestic Service Exemption for Home Health Care Aides?” .

Specifically, the proposed rule would eliminate the exemption for third-party employers, like service staffing agencies, even if the employee is jointly employed by the staffing agency and the family. The new proposal if implemented, would likely drive up costs for families who wish to care for their elderly and infirm at home.

The change would be particularly onerous for Home Health Agencies if it is deemed to be merely a correction of a “misinterpretation” and given retroactive effect. This could lead to claims of past liability for extra overtime compensation for Home Health Agencies that had relied on the Department of Labor’s prior interpretation. The DOL’s prior interpretation, exempting third party employers and staffing agencies from FLSA overtime requirements had been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Coke case.

The change in the federal DOL’s interpretation could also affect State Wage Hour Regulations (like New York). These provide favorable treatment for employers of employees who are exempt under the FLSA.

The public has been invited to comment on the proposed new rule. Potentially adversely affected employers may use the public comment period to point out the impropriety of the proposed change after thirty five years of consistent industry wide application of the current rule. Employers might also point out that an unintended effect of the changed rule may be to force the care of the elderly and infirm from their homes to an institutional setting, such as a nursing home or assisted care facility.

First Circuit Finds Employees Exempt from Overtime Pay

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:46:52 GMT

By: Peter M. Panken, Michael S. Kun, Douglas Weiner and Larissa Lalor-Rosado

Misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime compensation has become a cottage industry for plaintiff’s lawyers and for the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) in the Obama years. One of the most difficult issues is whether employees meet the so-called administrative exemption to the Wage Hour laws. In Hines v. State Room, the United States Circuit Court in New England offered some clarity and help to beleaguered employers holding that former banquet sales managers were exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The FLSA, requires overtime pay at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a seven day period unless the employee is exempt. The three pronged test for exemption for administrative employees is whether the employee is (1) salaried (paid a regular amount of at least $455 for all hours worked in a workweek); (2) the employee’s primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and (3) the employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

Plaintiffs were banquet sales managers whose job included seeking potential customers for events at the employer, developing the elements of the party or other event and submitting the proposed contract terms for approval by senior officials of the Banquet Halls.

The Court found that Plaintiffs met the first two prongs for exemption: Plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis, and their work was primarily administrative because it was ancillary to the employer’s actual business of providing banquet services.

Plaintiffs claimed that they did not meet the third prong for exemption because they lacked the authority to make any decisions of financial consequence, supervisory authority or policy-making authority.

The Court found that while the plaintiffs’ discretion in matters having significant financial impact was subject to managerial approval, such restrictions did not detract from the judgment exercised in developing a proposal for the client. Plaintiffs’ duties included maintaining primary contact with a client, tailoring an event to their needs, and overseeing the event through to execution. The Court ruled that plaintiffs exercised adequate discretion as sales people to be designated as exempt.

Other Factors Considered for Exemption

The preamble to the current DOL regulations identifies a host of factors that courts have found sufficient to demonstrate that employees exercise independent judgment. 69 Fed. Reg. at 22144. Such factors include:

· the ability to exercise discretion and independent judgment,

· freedom from direct supervision,

· personnel responsibilities,

· trouble-shooting or problem-solving activities on behalf of management,

· use of personalized communication techniques,

· authority to handle atypical or unusual situations,

· responsibility for assessing customer needs, primary contact to public or customers on behalf of the employer, the duty to anticipate competitive products or services and distinguish them from competitor’s products or services,

· advertising or promotion work, and coordination of departments, requirements or other activities for or on behalf of employer or employer’s clients or customers.

Unfortunately these factors are very fact intensive and do not provide a bright line test for exemption, But the Hines case does offer some useful precedent and guidance for employers. In any event, care must be taken to be sure that the law in a particular state or in a particular circuit does not impose a stricter limitation on the discretion and independent judgment issue.

Take-Away

An employer may retain the right to review an employee’s ability to create financial and contractual obligations and still properly classify the employee as exempt. Requiring managerial approval for these purposes does not necessarily detract from the judgment exercised by the employee at arriving at the proposal in the first place. In addition, as set forth above, there are numerous other factors that courts can consider in determining whether an employee should be designated as exempt.

U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review of the "Outside Sales" Exemption Found Applicable to Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:34:39 GMT

By: David Garland and Douglas Weiner

In February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gave a resounding victory to employers in the pharmaceutical industry by finding that pharmaceutical sales representatives are covered by the outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, No. 10-15257 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2011). Plaintiffs, and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) in an amicus brief, had argued the exemption did not apply because sales reps are prohibited from making the final sale. Prescription medicine in the heavily regulated pharmaceutical industry can only be sold to the ultimate consumer with the authorization of a licensed physician. Sales reps use their “selling skills” to persuade doctors to prescribe their employer’s products when the doctor’s patients have a medical need for them. Sales reps do not transfer title to the medicine themselves.

Previously the Second Circuit, in In Re Novartis, took a contrary view and adopted the Secretary of Labor’s position that the outside sales exemption did not apply to pharmaceutical sales representatives specifically because they were prohibited by regulation from making direct sales. The Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ and DOL’s “rigid, formalistic interpretation” of the FLSA’s definition of “sale,” which provides that “Sale” … includes any “sale … or other disposition.” 29 U.S.C. 203(k). Because of the uncertainty in this unsettled area of law, both the employee plaintiffs and the employer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Pertinent to the aggressive approach the DOL has recently taken in submitting unsolicited amicus briefs in significant cases, another issue the Supreme Court may review is the degree of deference, if any, the court owes to an amicus brief submitted by the DOL. Again in stark contrast, the Second Circuit gave the DOL’s amicus brief “controlling deference” to interpret the DOL’s own regulations while the Ninth Circuit gave the DOL’s amicus brief “no deference” finding it was a departure from established industry norm that the DOL used to short-cut the public notice – and – comment rule making procedures.

It would be a most welcome development for the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit and resolve this dramatic split in the circuit courts. However, even if the Second Circuit’s view of the “outside salesman” exemption is upheld, there are circumstances when sales reps may be exempt by virtue of the administrative exemption. Employers need clarity to structure employment practices without the ever-present threat of class action litigation.

Proposed Legislation May Expand the Scope of the Computer Employee Exemption

Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:06:33 GMT

By Douglas Weiner and Meg Thering

On October 20, 2011, the Computer Professionals Update Act (“the CPU Act”) – one of the first potential pieces of good news for employers this year – was introduced in the U.S. Senate. If passed, the CPU act would expand the computer employee exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). S. 1747.

Unlike much of the other legislation affecting employers that has been proposed or passed this year, the CPU Act would make business easier for employers and decrease the risk of employee misclassification lawsuits. If the proposed legislation passes, employers would be able to classify more employees as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. This would be a welcome change from the persistent drum beat of enhanced enforcement initiatives announced by government agencies and upticks in class and collective actions this year.

The computer employee exemption currently is limited to employees who earn at least $27.63 an hour and work as computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similar positions. Employees are exempt if their primary duties consist of: (1) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; (2) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; (3) the design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or (4) a combination of such duties. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17); 541 C.F.R. § 400; U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet #17E. In contrast, employees whose work consists of repairing or manufacturing computer equipment are not exempt. 541 C.F.R. § 401; U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet #17E.

The CPU Act would broaden the exemption to include any employee who works in a “computer or information technology occupation (including but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker.” The primary duties for the exemption to apply would also be broader under the CPU Act, which would consider employees exempt if their primary duties are: (1) “the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;” or (2) “the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications.” Employees who perform a combination of these duties would still be considered exempt. Also, employees who are “directing the work of individuals performing duties described [above], including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties” would be considered exempt. S. 1747.

Courts Differ Over Whether Pharma Sales Reps Are Exempt

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:36:23 GMT

by David Garland

During the last year, courts have reached different conclusions as to whether outside sales representatives of pharmaceutical companies are exempt and therefore not entitled to receive overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. These cases turned on the specific duties assigned to the sales representatives by their employers and point out that pharmaceutical companies need to review carefully the responsibilities of these employees.

In Smith v. Johnson & Johnson, 593 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2010), decided by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in February, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that the pharmaceutical sales representative (Patty Smith) was exempt from overtime pay under the administrative employee exception. Smith’s position required her to visit a targeted list of doctors to promote one of J&J’s drugs, but Smith developed her own itinerary and could elect to visit some doctors more frequently. Smith was required to plan and prioritize her responsibilities in a manner that maximized business results, she was the “expert” on her own territory, and was supposed to develop a strategic plan to achieve higher sales. Although she used a message prepared by J&J and pre-approved visual aids when meeting with doctors, she had some discretion in deciding how to approach the conversation. At her deposition, Smith made perhaps an admission fatal to her claim, conceding that “[i]t was really up to [her] to run the territory the way [she] wanted to.”

Based on Smith’s specific duties, the court concluded that her position required her to form a strategic plan designed to maximize sales in her territory. The court explained that this requirement satisfied the “‘directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer’ provision of the administrative exemption because it involved a high level of planning and foresight.” The Third Circuit also held that since Smith executed nearly all of her duties without direct oversight – and she described herself as “the manager of her own business who could run her won territory as she saw fit,” she satisfied the exercise of discretion and independent judgment prong of the administrative exemption.

The Second Circuit, in In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litigation, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13708 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2010), subsequently reached a different conclusion after considering the duties of the sales representatives in that case. Novartis’ sales representatives typically met with physicians for about five minutes, during which they described the benefits of Novartis’ products, provided free samples, and encouraged the physicians to prescribe Novartis drugs to patients. Novartis carefully controlled the content of these “sales” pitches, and the representatives were required to deliver a “core message” from which they could not deviate. At least every couple of weeks, a district manager accompanied the sales rep on his or her visits. One of the plaintiff sales rep plaintiffs testified that they were expected to act like “robots.”

Deferring to Department of Labor regulations, the Second Circuit concluded that Novartis’s sales reps did not come within the administrative exemption because they did not have “any authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement Novartis’ management policies or its operating practices.” Additionally, the court found no evidence that the sales reps were “involved in planning Novartis’ long-term or short-term business objectives,” or “carr[ied] out major assignments in conducting the operations of Novartis’ business” or had “any authority to commit Novartis in matters that have significant financial impact.”

The Second Circuit also concluded that the Novartis reps did not fall within the “outside salesmen” exemption. Again deferring to the DOL regulations, the court ruled that in order to fall within the exemption, an outside sales representative’s primary duty has to be making sales or obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities. Since Novartis’s reps were not engaged in sales – they merely promoted the drugs to physicians during brief meetings and physicians had no obligation to commit to buying anything, even where the physicians promised to prescribed a given Novartis drug, this exemption was also not satisfied.

The facts in these cases differed, which accounted in large part for the different outcomes – and J&J, unlike Novartis, had the good fortune of a plaintiff who virtually gave away her case by admitting that she could do what she wanted to do. But the differing outcomes also highlight the need for employers to review their sales programs carefully and to structure them as much as possible to satisfy one of the exemptions. Otherwise, they may find themselves with an outcome similar to Novartis.

Is the Department of Labor Considering a Revision to the Domestic Service Exemption for Home Health Care Aides?

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:49:25 GMT

By Doug Weiner and Brian Molinari

We live in a time of change. Last summer fifteen United States senators wrote an open letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to urge the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") to repeal the Domestic Service exemption from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the ("FLSA") for home health care workers. Secretary Solis has expressed support for the effort to review this exemption, with a view toward closing this "loophole." Citing a $9 an hour industry-wide average wage, the senators argued in favor of extending federal overtime requirements to "thousands of low-wage workers, primarily women, who are doing difficult, dangerous, yet extremely important work." Furthering public debate on the subject, the New York Times on January 28 ran an editorial in support of eliminating the Domestic Service exemption for home care aides.

The Domestic Service Exemption

Under current federal regulations, home health care aides who assist the elderly and infirm are exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 213(a)(15) (exempting "any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary)"). In 2007 the United States Supreme Court upheld the current Department of Labor regulation allowing this exemption against a strong legal challenge from organized labor. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007).

The exemption applies to all workers in domestic service who provide companionship services for individuals unable to care for themselves due to either physical or mental infirmity. Domestic service is work performed within the residence of the family using the services. Companionship services are those that provide fellowship, care and protection to the elderly and infirm. 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a). Home health care workers, whether employed directly by the family or by an employer or agency other than the household using their services, are currently exempt from the FLSA

Some state laws have already narrowed the federal exemption. Pennsylvania, for example, exempts only home health care aides employed directly by a family for work performed within their home, excluding from the exemption workers employed by a placement agency. New York requires the payment of time-and-one-half the minimum wage for overtime hours worked. Wherever a state law provides greater protection to employees than the FLSA, the state law prevails over federal law.

Potential Effects

Eliminating or modifying this federal exemption may increase the burden to working families who want to care for their loved ones at home. A change in the Domestic Service exemption may also have significant consequences for employers who provide home health care workers to families. Employers of home health aides often conduct background checks and provide training to workers before they arrive in the home to offer care for a family’s loved ones. There is an ever present danger that if costs of home care become prohibitive, economics will operate to push the elderly and infirm out of the home into nursing homes, or other institutionalized setting.

We will continue to monitor and post developments on this significant issue.

Recent Articles tagged exemptions (general) from LexMonitor