Overtime

Subscribe to Overtime via RSS

Q: I heard that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued a major ruling regarding overtime pay. What do I need to know?

A: On November 20, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the application of the fluctuating workweek method (“FWW Method”) of calculating overtime under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act…

Q. A client of my company asked whether it could offer production bonuses to our employees who deliver their work product prior to the deadline. Does the FLSA require my company to account for these third-party bonuses when calculating the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes?

A.  The answer…

Q.  I suspect that our company may have inadvertently committed overtime and minimum wage violations. Is there a way I can make this right without incurring substantial legal liability?

A.  Possibly. Earlier this year, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division announced the creation of a new nationwide pilot program called the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program. In short, the PAID program encourages employers to conduct payroll self-audits and, if they discover overtime or minimum wage violations, self-report those violations to the DOL and work with the DOL to rectify the problem and ensure employees are paid any wages owed.

Q.  What is the status of the EEOC’s requirement that we submit pay data with our annual EEO-1 Form?  Also, have there been any updates on the lawsuit blocking the DOL’s rule raising the salary basis for certain non-exempt employees?

A.  As we reported previously, the EEOC, as part of its effort to detect and remedy pay discrimination, amended its EEO-1 Form to require that employers with 100 or more employees submit detailed pay data on their workforce.  On August 29, 2017, the OMB sent a memorandum to the EEOC, staying implementation of this requirement.  Thus, at least for now, employers may limit the information provided on the EEO-1 Form to data on race, ethnicity and gender by occupational category (but not data on pay or hours worked).

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced the final version of their long-awaited overtime exemption rule today, which makes notable changes to the requirements for employees to qualify under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) “white collar” exemption. The most noteworthy change is an increase in the required salary level for exempt employees to $47,476 per year, but there are other important changes as well.

The rule first surfaced nearly a year ago in June 2015 and it has been a concern of all employers since then. The stated goal of the rule is to expand federal overtime regulations so that more than 4 million more workers will likely be entitled to overtime.

In 2011, the U. S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision regarding certification of employment discrimination class actions. The opinion, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, rejected the “trial by formula” approach of allowing a random sample of the class members’ claims to be tried, with the results of those trials to be applied to the entire class. Among other problems, the Court found that this shortcut approach deprived defendants of the ability to litigate statutory defenses to individualized claims. Dukes, however, did not reach the narrower issue of whether “representative,” “sample” or “anecdotal” evidence” is ever appropriate in a class-action employment case.

President Obama instructed the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) yesterday to change regulations to expand the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime provisions, in an effort to provide time-and-a-half wages to more employees.  The President signed a memorandum instructing his Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez to “update” the DOL’s regulations regarding which employees are exempt from the FLSA’s coverage, and which employees are non-exempt, and thus must be paid time-and-a-half their regular wage rate for all hours worked beyond 40 hours in a week.  The White House also issued a “fact-sheet” on the issue.

While it is not clear exactly what the DOL may do in response to the President’s direction, many feel that one likely step will be an attempt by the DOL to amend the FLSA’s regulations to raise the salary requirement employees must meet to qualify as an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee.  The current salary requirement is at least $455 per week, an amount established with the last set of DOL changes to the FLSA’s regulations back in 2004.  (Prior to 2004, the salary amount was $250, a number which had stayed constant since 1975.)

Sometimes employment lawsuits are so “funny” they almost literally make steam come out of your ears.  In one recent case, the “employee’s” claim for unpaid overtime was particularly infuriating because she never worked for her alleged employer.

The Tampa Bay Times ran an article yesterday about a business in Pinellas Park, Florida that was sued for alleged unpaid overtime by two former employees.  The business owner didn’t believe he owed anyone any overtime or that he had violated the FLSA, so he hired an attorney to fight the lawsuit.  He was upset about having to spend money to defend himself, but he was even more concerned because he had never heard of one of the two plaintiffs suing him, even though he knew all of his current and former employees.

A few years ago, the New York Times ran an article about investigations into the legality of unpaid internships at for-profit businesses, explaining that such investigations were being conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor, as well as by the labor departments of several states, including California, Oregon, and New York.

At that time, many practitioners expected that there would be a tidal wave of class action lawsuits brought by former unpaid interns but, surprisingly, that wave did not come…until now.