Wage and Hour Defense Blog

With more than 24 million mothers with children under the age of 18 in the U.S. workforce, many of whom breastfeed their children, it is important for employers to understand the break time and pumping space protections afforded to nursing mothers by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Reasonable Break Time to Pump

Under the FLSA, nursing employees are entitled to reasonable break time during the workday to express breast milk for their nursing child for one year following the child’s birth. The employee must be entitled to a break “each time such employee has need to express milk.” The frequency, duration, and timing of the breaks an employee may need will likely vary depending on the employee and child.

Employers are not required to pay non-exempt employees for break time to pump unless otherwise required by applicable law, or if the employees are not completely relieved of their duties while pumping. Under the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations implementing the FLSA, breaks of 20 minutes or less must be paid, and if an employer provides such breaks to its employees generally, nursing employees may use such paid breaks to pump. Additionally, if an employer provides paid breaks to all employees, the employer must pay employees who choose to pump during their paid breaks.

On August 23, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its much-anticipated decision in Restaurant Law Center v. United States Department of Labor.  In one of the very first federal appellate court rulings since the Supreme Court overruled Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.  this year, the unanimous three-judge panel concluded that the Department of Labor’s 2021 Final Rule regarding tipped employees and the minimum wage, commonly known as the “80/20 Rule” or the “80/20/30 Rule,” is both contrary to the pertinent statutory text and  arbitrary and capricious.  As a result, the court vacated the rule.

Background: Minimum Wage, the Tip Credit, Dual Jobs, and 80/20

The Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) allows employers to count a portion of tips received by a “tipped employee” toward satisfying the federal minimum wage obligation.  The statute defines a “tipped employee” as “any employee engaged in an occupation in which he customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips.”  That portion of the statute has been in place, largely unchanged, since 1966.  Whether an employee counts as a “tipped employee” determines whether the employer may pay a reduced hourly wage of as low as $2.13, so long as the tips suffice to make up the difference to minimum wage.  Employees who are not tipped employees must receive at least the full minimum wage directly from their employer.

In 1967, the Department of Labor issued a regulation positing that workers may have more than one job with an employer, one of which involves tips and one or more of which does not.  The example the Department used was a hotel employee who works some shifts as a server in the hotel restaurant and other shifts as the hotel’s maintenance person.  The so-called “dual jobs” regulation took the position that the employer may pay the lower hourly wage, known as taking the tip credit, for the time spent in the tipped occupation of server, but not for the time spent in the untipped maintenance occupation.

Employers are generally required to pay nonexempt employees overtime compensation of at least one and a half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. While this is nothing new for employers, determining an employee’s regular rate is often more complex than one might think, and it is often a great cause of confusion for employers.

As we have previously discussed on this blog, the regular rate is a term of art that encompasses all nondiscretionary payments to an employee, and not just hourly wages—subject to certain exceptions. (For a discussion of what must be included in the regular rate, please see our prior post.) If, for instance, an hourly, non-exempt employee receives a productivity bonus, the regular rate for that employee is the hourly rate of pay plus the productivity bonus.

The Department of Labor Fact Sheet #56A explains the basic calculation of the regular rate in the following way:

Total compensation in the workweek (exclusive of statutory exclusions) ÷ Total hours worked in the workweek = Regular rate for the workweek

As we previously reported, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new final rule increasing the minimum salary amounts for the executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) and highly compensated employee exemptions. Shortly after the DOL announced its final rule, three lawsuits were filed in federal district courts in Texas challenging the DOL’s authority to increase the salary thresholds. However, despite these challenges, the first increase took effect on July 1, 2024 for all employers, except for the State of Texas as an employer.

State of Texas v. DOL

On May 22, 2024, a group of national business associations filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the DOL challenging the final rule.[1] This lawsuit was later consolidated with a complaint filed in the same court by the State of Texas similarly challenging the final rule.[2] Notably, the consolidated action alleges that the final rule exceeds the DOL’s statutory authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and that the final rule is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA.

As we have previously addressed, the U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued its final rule raising salary thresholds for overtime exemptions under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) effective January 1, 2025.

While there are legal challenges to the final rule, the DOL is offering webinars about the final rule to employers on May 30, 2024 and June 3, 2024.

Those webinars could certainly provide employers with valuable insights into the DOL’s approach. 

While the DOL may well encourage employers to make modifications immediately to comply with the final rule, the legal ...

Despite Punxsutawney Phil declaring an early spring, employers should continue to prepare for weather-related emergencies and their wage and hour implications.  As with most of wage and hour-related determinations, employers should be mindful of the distinctions between their exempt and non-exempt workforce when assessing their obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state and local laws, to pay employees as a result of weather-related emergencies.

Salaried Exempt Employees

Under the FLSA, employers may not deduct from the salary of an employee classified ...

A number of 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 their clients violate the laws.

Over the past few years, lower courts in Massachusetts have grappled with determining whether the “ABC test” under the independent-contractor statute provides the proper framework for assessing joint-employment liability. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has finally answered that question.  On December 13, 2021, in Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, the SJC held that the independent-contractor statute’s “ABC test” does not apply and instead adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) “totality of the circumstances” approach to joint employment.

Credico was a client broker for independent direct marketing companies. It contracted with DFW Consultants, Inc. (DFW) to provide sales and marketing services for its clients in Massachusetts. To provide those services, DFW hired three of the plaintiffs – Kyana Jinks, Antwione Taylor, and Lee Tremblay – as salespeople. DFW classified Jinks and Taylor as independent contractors and Tremblay as an employee.

On Friday, October, 29, 2021, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule regarding how to determine which tipped employees may receive a “tip credit” in lieu of receiving the full minimum wage directly from the employer. The new rule restores the “80/20” rule rescinded under President Trump, requiring employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage if they spend more than 20% of their time working on tasks that do not specifically generate tips such as wiping down tables, filling salt and pepper shakers, and rolling silverware into napkins, or duties referred to in the industry as “side work.” The rule goes into effect on December 31, 2021 and the change represents continuation of a pattern that has continued across administrations with Presidents adopting and rescinding the rule over the past three administrations.

The doctrine “joint employer” liability has received significant attention in recent months, including on this blog. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee may be deemed to have multiple employers—each of whom would be liable jointly for all aspects of FLSA compliance, including with regard to the payment of wages—in connection with his or her performance of the same work. During the prior administration, the U.S. DOL issued a rule intended to standardize the parameters of joint employer liability.  Months later, however, a federal court invalidated a portion of the new rule, holding that it impermissibly narrowed the scope of the joint employer doctrine. And, in July 2021, the DOL announced its outright repeal of the rule—i.e., whether a business might face joint employer liability will again be governed by the multi-factor “economic reality” test subject to varying judicial interpretations.

On June 1, 2021 the Southern District of Florida granted the motion by Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) to compel arbitration, finding that the company’s drivers did not engage in sufficient interstate commerce to meet the interstate commerce exclusion in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

Plaintiffs Kathleen Short and Harold White brought a class action against Uber alleging that the company’s policy of classifying its drivers as independent contractors violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act because the company failed to pay drivers the minimum wage. Uber sought to enforce its arbitration agreement which unambiguously required plaintiffs to pursue any potential claims in an individual arbitration.

Many New York families employ domestic workers –individuals who care for a child, serve as a companion for a sick, convalescing or elderly person, or provide housekeeping or any other domestic service. They may be unaware of federal and New York requirements that guarantee those domestic workers minimum wage for all hours worked, paid meal breaks, and overtime compensation.

In addition, New York imposes specific requirements on employers regarding initial pay notices, pay frequency, and pay statements that also apply to persons who employ domestic workers.

To avoid inadvertent wage and hour violations, it is important that persons who employ domestic workers in New York understand the relevant laws regarding domestic workers and approach what many understandably consider a personal relationship as a formal, business one for wage and hour purposes.

Employers grappling with the many questions related to bringing employees back into the workplace safely in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic should pay close attention to the potential wage-and-hour risks attendant to doing so—including whether to pay employees for time spent waiting in line for a temperature check, verifying vaccination status, or completing other health screening inquiries.

Given the growing trend of COVID-19 lawsuits, ignoring these risks could leave employers vulnerable to costly class and collective action litigation.

What the Law Requires

Under ...

Effective July 1, 2021, Virginia employers must ensure that their pay practices comply with a new stand-alone overtime law called the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (“VOWA”). VOWA largely tracks the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in that it incorporates most FLSA exemptions and requires employers to pay 1.5 times a nonexempt employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek. However, VOWA and the FLSA differ in several ways.

Determining an Employee’s Regular Rate of Pay

VOWA’s most significant divergence from the FLSA ...

On June 16, 2021, Hawaii enacted Senate Bill 793 (the “Act”), which repeals an exemption to the minimum wage for disabled employees, often referred to as “the disability subminimum wage.” The Act took effect immediately and requires all Hawaii employers pay disabled individuals no less than the state minimum wage.

Previously, Section 14(c) of federal Fair Labor Standards Act permitted Hawaii employers to pay individuals with disabilities less than the state minimum wage, which is currently set at $10.10.  However, the Act explains that the exemption, which was intended to ...

As we previously discussed, in early January 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a Final Rule regarding independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  On May 5, 2021, in line with the policy goals of the new administration, the Department issued a Final Rule withdrawing the January Final Rule.  The withdrawal went into effect on May 6, 2021, upon the publication in the Federal Register (86 FR 24303).  The January independent contractor rule was originally to go into effect in March, before the Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to ...

On January 29, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the immediate termination of its Payroll Audit Independent Determination Program (PAID).  Launched in March 2018 by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD), PAID was intended to resolve wage and hour disputes with greater expediency and at lower cost to employers.  However, in the WHD’s press release, Principal Deputy Administrator Jessica Looman indicated that the program had not achieved the desired effect, stating that the PAID “program deprived workers of their rights and put employers that play by the rules at a ...

On September 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) released its highly anticipated proposed rule for distinguishing independent contractors from employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

When evaluating independent contractor status under the FLSA, courts have traditionally applied what is known as the “economic realities” test. The test varies slightly from circuit to circuit, and, perhaps, court to court, but courts generally consider the following factors on a non-exclusive basis: (i) the degree of control that the putative employer ...

On September 8, 2020, a federal district court struck down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule on joint employer liability, concluding that the Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by impermissibly narrowing the definition of joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), departing from the DOL’s prior interpretations on joint employment without adequate explanation, and otherwise being arbitrary and capricious.  We previously blogged about the details of the Final Rule here.  The DOL published the Final Rule in ...

In a case of first impression for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a Fifth Circuit panel has ruled that it is the employee, not the employer, who has the burden to establish that bonus payments are non-discretionary and, therefore, must be included in the regular rate of pay for computation of overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  Joshua Edwards, et al. v. 4JLJ LLC, et al., Case Number 19-40553 (5th Cir. September 3, 2020).

Under the FLSA, a non-exempt employee’s regular rate is the hourly rate actually paid to that employee for all remuneration.  Section ...

At the end of August, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) issued four new opinion letters addressing various issues arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  The topics covered include the retail or service establishment, highly compensated employee, and professional exemptions; reimbursing non-exempt employees for required use of a personal vehicle; and the fluctuating workweek method of calculating overtime pay.  These opinion letters offer a helpful overview of key FLSA principles and may answer fact-specific questions ...

With summer rapidly approaching and COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders still in effect, many companies face an important and difficult decision of canceling this year’s summer programs, delaying start dates or conducting programs virtually. This ultimately will be a business decision with no one-size-fits-all answer.

A good first step is to assess whether the influx of new summer workers will help or hinder current operations. Are temporary summer interns a boost to productivity or a drag on experienced employees who may be called upon to train and mentor them? Will the employer expect to offer employment to these summer recruits following the internship?

In addition, given the seismic nature of COVID-19 that has indiscriminately shaken businesses in most industries, can an employer’s business afford to bring on temporary summer workers and, if so, does the business have the literal and figurative bandwidth to support these workers, especially if they will be teleworking for at least part of the summer?

Below are five compliance and management issues employers should consider for their upcoming summer programs.

Onboarding

Typically employers have a pre-employment screening process in place for summer interns/analysts/associates, which may include, among other things, screening for illegal drugs and controlled substances; investigating and verifying criminal history; and verifying education and prior employment history. Many steps in the screening process take place in person. However, even where new hires may be asked to commence employment remotely, including an incoming summer class, compliance is still possible.

Since the start of COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government has relaxed many of the regulatory requirements for onboarding new hires. On March 20, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that for the next 60 days or for the duration of the National Emergency (whichever is sooner), employers with staff teleworking due to COVID-19 can obtain and inspect new employees’ identity and employment authorization documents remotely rather in the employee’s physical presence, as long as they provide written documentation of their remote onboarding and teleworking policy for each employee.