Wage and Hour Defense Blog

On August 16, 2023, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Third Circuit vacated and remanded a decision from the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruling that the time spent by oil-rig workers changing in and out of their protective gear was not compensable.

Plaintiffs Rodney Tyger, Shawn Wadsworth brought a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against Defendants Precision Drilling Corp., Precision Drilling Oilfield Services, Inc., and Precision Drilling Company, LP (“Precision”), an oil rig, for failing to pay them for pre-shift donning and post-shift doffing of ...

On August 30, 2023, in one of the U.S. Department of Labor’s most highly anticipated rulemakings of the year, the Wage and Hour Division announced the details of its forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding the salary requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees.  In short, the Department has elected to go big, with the soon-to-be-published draft rule containing the following key elements:

1. Increasing the minimum salary for the basic executive, administrative, and professional ...

Earlier this year, on February 6, 2023, the New Jersey Governor signed the Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights into law.

On August 21, 2023, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) Division of Wage and Hour and Contract Compliance published Proposed Regulations to govern the new law. The Department will be accepting public comments regarding the Law until October 20, 2023. While the Bill of Rights has wide-sweeping consequences for temporary laborers and third-party clients, it is also notable for making New Jersey the first state to require equal ...

On August 4, 2023, the Governor of Illinois signed HB 2862 into law, amending the Illinois Day and Temporary Labor Services Act (DTLS).

Under the amendments, temporary labor service agencies must pay temporary workers who are assigned to a third-party client for more than 90 days wages and benefits (or the cash value of such benefits) equal to the lowest-paid comparable direct-hire employee at the third-party client.

A direct-hire comparator means an individual with equal seniority status to the temporary worker who performs the “same or substantially similar” role under ...

The “regular rate of pay,” an often-misunderstood legal term of art, can be a thorn in the side of employers when calculating how to pay non-exempt hourly employees. These employees must be paid an overtime rate of at least one and a half times their regular rate of pay. Issues can arise when, in addition to their hourly wages, non-exempt hourly employees receive compensation that can change their regular rate of pay, and thus their overtime rate of pay, on a weekly basis. In some states, such as California, the regular rate of pay is also used when paying meal and rest break premiums ...

Psychologist Abraham Maslow once observed, “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.”[1] That sums up the state of commission litigation under the Massachusetts Wage Act: mandatory treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and the prospect that a court might strike a term of an agreed-upon commission plan as an unenforceable “special contract” that deprives an employee of earned wages has led to an uptick in the number of commission claims. Given these potential consequences, employees sometimes try to fit a square peg into a ...

With $3 million in funding from A.B. 102, California’s recent appropriations bill, the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the administrative body charged by statute to regulate wages, hours, and working conditions, will reconvene for the first time since 2004, when it was defunded for budgetary reasons.  The IWC was established in 1913 and has gone through several changes throughout the years.  Its most recent, lasting impact on employment in California, however, consists of 17 “wage orders” regulating the wages, hours and working conditions in specific industries. 

For more than a few years -- at least since the United States Supreme Court’s seminal 2017 decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis -- employers across the country have weighed whether to have their employees sign arbitration agreements with class and collective action waivers. 

While many employers have chosen to do so, many have elected not to. 

For decades, many employers have rounded non-exempt employees’ work time when calculating their compensation.  Maybe they have rounded employee work time to the nearest 10 minutes, maybe to the nearest quarter hour, but they done it. And, generally, the courts have approved of the practice.

But as more and more lawsuits are filed challenging the practice, and as the courts begin to review time-rounding more frequently and more critically, the question employers with time-rounding policies should ask themselves today is this:  Why are we still rounding our employees’ time?

The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District recently issued its opinion regarding business-related expenses in Thai v. International Business Machines Corporation. The Court found that expenses incurred by employees in direct consequence of performing their jobs may be reimbursable regardless of whether such expenses are directly caused by the employer.

Paul Thai was employed by defendant and respondent IBM. Thai required, among other things, internet access, telephone service, a telephone headset, a computer and accessories in order to perform the functions of his job. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued a stay-at-home order that instructed all California residents “[t]o stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors” and any other additional sectors later designated as critical. After the order went into effect, IBM directed Thai and thousands of other workers to continue performing their regular job duties from home. Thai and the other IBM workers personally paid for the services and equipment necessary to do their jobs while working from home, and IBM did not reimburse them for those expenses.