Reversing a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, an August 21, 2015 decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. Weil (pdf) has approved a regulation by the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) extending federal minimum wage and overtime protections to home care workers and live-in domestic service employees employed by third parties.
We previously wrote about the decision by the District Court for the District of Columbia that vacated a DOL regulation that had been ...
On August 7, 2015 the Second Circuit held that parties cannot enter into private settlements of Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or the “Act”) claims without the approval of either the district court or the Department of Labor. Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., No. 14-299 (2nd Cir. 2015).
Although other circuits are split on the issue of whether pre-suit agreements to settle FLSA claims are enforceable, this is the first appellate decision to address the issue of whether judicial approval is required to terminate an FLSA lawsuit once it has been filed. See Lynn's Food ...
The Administrator of the Wage Hour Division of U.S. Department of Labor has issued an Administrator’s Interpretation of the FLSA’s definition of “employ.” And the conclusion is one that not only could have a significant impact on the way companies do business, but lead to numerous class and collective actions alleging that workers have been misclassified as independent contractors.
Addressing the misclassification of employees as independent contractors, the Administrator’s Interpretation notes that the FLSA’s defines the term “employ” as “to suffer ...
Most of us don’t think of window washers on high rise buildings as employees who qualify for an exemption from overtime pay. But under an unusual set of facts, this is precisely what the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Alvarado v. Corporate Cleaning Services, Inc., 782 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2015).
Corporate Cleaning Services (“CCS”) provided window washing services to high rise buildings. When it received an order for a window washing job, it calculated a number of points, based on the job’s complexity and the number of hours estimated to complete it, to determine the price ...
On July 2, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a federal district court decision that held that unpaid interns should have been classified and paid as employees under both the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York State Labor Law. Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., Nos. 13-4478-cv, 13-4481-cv (2d Cir. July 2, 2015). The Second Circuit’s decision provides valuable guidance to employers with unpaid interns.
In the case, the Second Circuit noted the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL’s”) 1967 and 2010 informal ...
More than a year after its efforts were first announced, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has finally announced its proposed new rule pertaining to overtime. And that rule, if implemented, will result in a great many “white collar” employees previously treated as exempt becoming eligible for overtime pay for work performed beyond 40 hours in a workweek – or receiving salary increases in order that their exempt status will continue.
In 2014, President Obama directed the DOL to enhance the “white collar” exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” ...
On June 18, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion in Lemus v. Denny's, Inc. The opinion provides guidance to California employers that require their employees to wear non-slip shoes as a condition of employment.
California law generally requires that an employer must reimburse employees for “necessary expenditures.” However, not all expenses are reimbursable.
In addressing Denny’s requirement that employees wear non-slip black shoes for which they are not reimbursed, the Court noted that, under California law, a “‘restaurant employer must only ...
On June 8, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Tyson Foods’ petition for review of the Eighth Circuit’s decision affirming the district court’s class and collective certification of a donning and doffing case under what Tyson Foods has described as “seriously flawed procedures.” While it does not appear that the Supreme Court’s review will deal directly with the standards for donning and doffing – i.e., the practice of employees putting on and taking off their uniforms and/or personal protective equipment pre- and post-shift – the Court appears likely to resolve ...
In Resch v. Krapf’s Coaches, Inc., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that drivers who “rarely or never crossed state lines” were nevertheless covered by the motor carrier exemption to the FLSA because they worked in safety-affecting jobs and reasonably could have been expected to drive interstate routes.
The FLSA’s motor carrier exemption creates an overtime exemption for employees who are covered by the Secretary of Transportation’s authority to regulate the safe operation of motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce. To fall under the Secretary of ...
On April 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the employee’s petition for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., which reversed a near-$90 million judgment awarded in the favor of a certified class of current and former security guards on rest period claims, and also held that while “an on-call guard must return to duty if called to do so, [] remaining available to work is not the same as actually working.” We previously wrote about the Augustus decision here. Importantly, because the California Supreme Court has decided ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- New Paycheck Requirements Coming to Ohio in April
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on … California Wage Statements
- Epstein Becker Green’s Free Wage-Hour App Includes Updates on New 2025 Laws
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage-Hour Tip on … DOL Confirms Managers Are Blocked from Tip Pool Even When Working in Non-Supervisory Capacity
- Employers in California: Don’t Forget That “Joint Employers” Are Not Vicariously Liable for Each Other’s Conduct