In Ruffin v. MotorCity Casino, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether casino security guards were entitled to be paid for meal periods during which they were required to remain on casino property, monitor two-way radios and respond to emergencies if called to do so.
The District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan had granted summary judgment to the employer based on the conclusion that no reasonable jury could have found the meal periods to be compensable work time.
In affirming the ruling of the District Court, the Sixth Circuit relied on its earlier decision in ...
On December 23, 2014, Brian Steinbach posted regarding U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon’s December 22nd decision in Home Care Association of America v. Weil, vacating the portion of the new Department of Labor regulation (proposed 29 CFR Sec. 552.109, scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2015) barring third party employers from claiming the companionship services (minimum wage and overtime) or live-in domestic service (overtime) exemptions. The post noted that the decision did not address DOL’s separate changes to the definition of “companionship services” ...
Several years ago, I received a kind note around the holidays from my opposing counsel in a wage-hour class action, thanking me and my firm for being their “partners” in addressing employment issues.
Maybe the word he used wasn’t “partners,” but it was something close to it.
At first, I must admit that I thought he was joking.
Then I realized that this attorney, for whom I have great respect, got it.
He got that employers are not looking to violate employment laws, and that the attorneys who represent them are not trying to help them violate the laws.
He got that the opposite is true ...
Our colleagues at Epstein Becker Green have released an advisory that will be of interest, particularly to New York employers: "New York Wage Theft Prevention Act Update: Annual Notice Requirement Is Removed for 2015," by Susan Gross Sholinsky, William J. Milani, Jeffrey M. Landes, Dean L. Silverberg, Nancy L. Gunzenhauser, and Kate B. Rhodes.
Following is an excerpt:
On December 29, 2014, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the long-awaited amendment (“Amendment”) to the Wage Theft Prevention Act (“WTPA” or “Act”) and a chapter memorandum. Notably, the ...
On December 22, 2014, the District of Columbia federal district court vacated a new U.S. Department of Labor regulation, scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2015, barring third-party employers from claiming minimum wage and overtime exemptions for “companionship” domestic service workers, as well as a statutory overtime exemption for live-in domestic service employees.
In his scathing opinion in Home Care Association of America v. Weil, Judge Richard J. Leon pointed out that the United States Supreme Court has already rejected “a challenge to the validity of the ...
On our Management Memo blog, my colleagues Adam Abrahms, Martin Stanberry, and I posted “NLRB Issues 13 Complaints Alleging McDonald’s and Franchisees Are Joint-Employers.”
The National Labor Relations Board continues to focus on the changes in the nature of the employer-employee relationship, and the question of what entity or entities are responsible to a company’s employees for compliance with the range of federal, state, and local employment laws, including wage payment and overtime laws.
The Board’s General Counsel has now taken another ...
There is an unusual wage issue for 2015 that will affect many employers that pay exempt employees on a bi-weekly basis (rather than weekly, semi-monthly or monthly).
It is an issue that may have both financial and legal repercussions.
And it is an issue we suspect many employers had not noticed or considered.
With 52 weeks in a year, there normally are 26 bi-weekly pay periods in a calendar year. In 2015, however, there will be 27 for many employers.
This oddity occurs every 11 years. In short, it happens because 26 bi-weekly paychecks only cover 364 days in a year, not 365 (or 366 in Leap ...
Our colleague Stuart M. Gerson at Epstein Becker Green wrote a new blog post that discusses the Supreme Court’s recent Dart decision: “Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Class Action Removal.”
Following is an excerpt:
On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, a class action removal case.
In short, the Dart case is welcome news to employers. Standards for removing a case from state to federal court have been an abiding point of concern for employers faced with “home town” class actions. In more ...
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with valuable merchandise being removed in bags, purses or jacket pockets.
Often in the context of high-stakes class actions and collective actions, parties have litigated whether time spent undergoing a security screening must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). On December 9, 2014, a unanimous ...
As readers of this blog know, EBG’s free wage-hour app is now available for download on Apple, Android, and Blackberry devices. The app puts federal wage-hour laws and those of many states at users’ fingertips.
Now, the app also includes 7 checklists that employers should find helpful.
Each of the following checklists can be accessed through the “Downloads” icon on the app, then downloaded in seconds:
- Applying the Administrative Exemption
- Applying the Computer Employee Exemption
- Applying the Executive Exemption
- Applying the Highly Compensated Employee Exemption
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