Fair Labor Standards Act

Our colleague David M. Prager at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Wage and Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to our readers in the hospitality industry: “Overtime: DOL Proposes to Raise Salary Level for Overtime Exemption to $35,308.

Following is an excerpt:

The U.S. Department of Labor has released a proposal to update the overtime rules under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers should be prepared to raise salaries to meet the minimum thresholds, pay overtime when appropriate, and otherwise adhere to the new rules if they go into effect.

Federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Unless exempt, employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. To be exempt from overtime (i.e., not entitled to receive overtime), an exemption must apply. For an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet certain minimum requirements. The “salary test” presently requires workers to make at least $23,660 on an annual basis to be exempt from overtime. …

Read the full post here.

Our colleague  at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Wage and Hour Defense blog that will be of interest to our readers in the hospitality industry: “Federal Court Concludes That 7-Eleven Franchisees Are Not Employees of 7-Eleven.

Following is an excerpt:

In November 2017, four convenience store franchisees brought suit in federal court against 7-Eleven, Inc., alleging that they and all other franchisees were employees of 7-Eleven. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Haitayan, et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc., case no. CV 17-7454-JFW (JPRx).

In alleging that they were 7-Eleven’s employees, the franchisees brought claims for violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code, alleging overtime and expense reimbursement violations. The trial court granted judgment in 7-Eleven’s favor, concluding that 7-Eleven was not the four franchisees’ employer under California law or federal law. …

Read the full post here. 

Our colleagues , at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Wage and Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “Initial Discovery Guidelines May Fast-Track Early Disclosure Requirements in Individual FLSA Cases.”

Following is an excerpt:

Depending on the jurisdictions within which they operate, certain employers and their counsel will soon see a significant change in early mandatory discovery requirements in individual wage-hour cases brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

A new set of initial discovery protocols recently published by the Federal Judicial Center (“FJC”), entitled Initial Discovery Protocols For Fair Labor Standards Act Cases Not Pleaded As Collective Actions (“FLSA Protocols”), available here, expands a party’s initial disclosure requirements to include additional documents and information relevant to FLSA cases. These Protocols apply, however, only to FLSA lawsuits that have been filed in participating courts that have implemented the Protocols by local rule or by standing, general, or individual case order. …

Read the full post here.

Our colleague Jeffrey H. Ruzal recently wrote an article entitled “Offset as Defense to FLSA Suit May Mitigate Unpaid Wage Claims,” which appears in the June 2014 issue of Hospitality Law.

Following is an excerpt:

A federal district court in Michigan recently preserved for trial the question of whether a defendant employer may mitigate its back wage liability by offsetting paid break time, which would effectively extinguish plaintiff employees’ claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In Hayes, et al., v. Greektown Casino, LLC, et al., No. 12-1552 (E.D. Mich. 03/31/14), a group of
current and former security officers who were employed by Greektown Casino alleged that their employer violated the FLSA by failing to compensate them for all hours worked.

Read the full article here.

Reprinted with permission from Hospitality Law. Copyright 2014 by LRP Publications. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418. All rights reserved. For details on this or other related products, visit www.shoplrp.com/hospitality.html or call toll free 1-800-341-7874.
 

Our colleague Kara Maciel, the editor of Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog, was quoted in an article titled "Six Tips on Not Getting Tripped Up by FLSA’s Tipped Employee Rules" that was recently published in Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert.

Following is an excerpt:

Employers need to make sure they are following both federal Fair Labor Standards Act requirements and state laws regarding tipped employees, said Kara Maciel of the firm Epstein Becker Green during a recent seminar focused on tipped employees. …

However, every state has its own set of rules regarding tipped workers and employers must make sure they also are compliant with those local requirements. States such as Hawaii, Massachusetts and New York are particularly challenging and in some cases have seen increased litigation over tip practices in recent years, Maciel noted. …

Click here to read more.

By: Jeffrey M. Landes and Susan Gross Sholinsky

The presentation slides and the recording for the webinar – Creating and Maintaining a Lawful Internship Program – are now accessible for your viewing. If you would like to review, please contact Kiirsten Lederer to obtain instructions.

During this timely and important webinar, we discussed how to minimize both your organization’s liability and the risk of wage and hour lawsuits. Specifically, participants walked away with answers to the following questions:

  • What are the best practices for recruiting and hiring interns, and what critical language should you include (or avoid) in offer letters, employment contracts, and other communications?
  • What assignments are appropriate for interns, and what tasks must you prevent interns from doing?
  • How does the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to interns?
  • What is the best way to handle various forms of remuneration (money, academic credit, company discounts, etc.) for interns?
  • How do the rules of for-profit and non-profit companies differ (and what rules apply to public-sector employers)?
  • How do child labor laws affect internships?
  • What are best practices for organizations—before, during and after an internship program?
  • Do company policies apply to interns?
  • What rules should you consider if you would like to hire an intern on a full-time basis in the future?
  • When does workers’ compensation or other insurance kick in, and how should you handle unemployment insurance?
  • What common blunders should you avoid when setting up school internship programs?
  • What ethical considerations apply when creating an internship program?

We look forward to your participation in future EBG educational programs. Please click here for a list of upcoming webinars/events that may be of interest to you or your colleagues.

By:  Kara Maciel, Adam Solander and Lindsay Smith

As the Employer Mandate compliance deadline looms for employers under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and employers are closely monitoring employee hours, it is critical that employers take appropriate and lawful steps to record all hours worked by an employee.  If employers try to play games and manipulate how time records are maintained, they could find themselves in hot water under both the ACA and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). 

In what appears to be one of the first lawsuits challenging how hours are recorded under the ACA, an employee filed a putative collective action against Sun Holdings, LLC, a fast food franchisee.  The employee, a busboy at a Golden Corral restaurant, alleged that his managers required him to work under his real name and an alter ego to avoid paying him for all hours worked.  This set-up allegedly was designed to avoid having to pay overtime compensation under the FLSA and to count him as a full-time employee eligible to receive health benefits under the ACA.   

Accurate calculation and recording of the total number of hours worked by an employee is essential to compliance with the provisions of both the FLSA and the ACA.  Under the FLSA, an employer must pay an employee at least the minimum wage for all hours worked.  An employer must also provide overtime compensation at one and a half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, unless that employee is classified as exempt.  Therefore, if an employer attributes some amount of time worked by one employee to an alter ego through which the employee cannot claim his time, the employee may be deprived of the overtime compensation he has earned.

Additionally, the ACA only provides benefits to employees who reach a certain amount of hours and binds employers with a certain amount of employees meeting that hour threshold.  The ACA applies to employers with 50 or more employees working 30 or more hours per week.  Only those employees working 30 hours or more per week are entitled to the health care coverage required by the ACA.  Therefore, an employee may lose the benefits to which he would otherwise be entitled if a portion of his hours worked is attributed to someone else, causing him to fall below the 30-hour minimum.  Furthermore, an employer may avoid the obligations of the ACA if it records 30 hours or more of work time for less than 50 of its employees. Although the Employer Mandate, which puts the employer-provided coverage into effect, does not kick in for large employers until January 1, 2015, applicability of the ACA depends upon the size of the affected workforce during the prior calendar year.      

A claim of this kind could be very costly for an employer because, as is the case here, such claims are often brought as collective actions.  In this case, the employee filed his claim on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.  Although the amount of unpaid wages and liquidated damages he seeks only amounts to approximately $15,000.00, the franchisee owns roughly 400 restaurants in Texas and Florida.  Thus, a court award, or even a settlement, could be quite significant.

These allegations demonstrate the importance of correctly tracking employee hours and ensuring that an employee receives compensation and benefits in accordance with the total amount of hours worked.  Often times, this may mean training your managers as to the correct protocol for recording and compensating hours worked and monitoring to ensure managers are following that protocol. 

Importantly, this case forecasts what could be an emerging and growing area of litigation under the ACA, so employers must be ever vigilant about putting into practice protocols that ensure they are complying with the ACA and not manipulating hours to avoid the Employer Mandate’s requirements.  Considering that an analysis under the Employer Mandate’s look-back methodologies should be done this year, any changes to employees’ hours should be closely reviewed with legal counsel.  Although overtime compensation and benefits coverage can create increased financial burdens on employers, the cost of not complying can be even greater. 

Continue Reading Playing with Employees’ Hours Could Get You in Hot Water under the ACA and FLSA

By Jordan B. Schwartz

Virtually all hospitality employers are aware that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), they are required to compensate employees for all hours worked. What is not as clear, however, is whether the time an employee spends at training programs, lectures, meetings, and other similar activities should be considered hours worked. As a result, our clients in the hospitality industry often ask whether they are required to compensate employees for time spent in such training activities. 

The short answer to this question is that an employee’s time spent in training sessions should be considered “working time” and thus is compensable, unless the following four factors are met:

a)      Attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours;

b)      Attendance is voluntary;

c)      The training is not directly related to the employee’s job; and

d)     The employee does not perform any productive work during the training.

This “four-factor test,” however, is not as straightforward as it may seem. Indeed, as demonstrated by the below “Common Employer Inquiries and Responses,” these factors contain many nuances that may make it difficult for an employer to easily determine whether training time should be compensable. 

Common Employer Inquiries and Responses

i. How should an employer determine whether attendance at a training session is outside “regular working hours?”

By default, some employers interpret the term “regular working hours” to mean the typical, standard hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. As a result, these employers automatically compensate all employees for any training that takes place during these hours, even for those who do not work this standard schedule. Such an interpretation, however, may result in significant overpayments to your employees. The term “regular working hours” refers to the particular shift worked by an individual employee.  Thus, if a waitress regularly works a shift from 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., the restaurant employing her would not be required to compensate her for attending a training session from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. (assuming all three other factors were satisfied), since the training session would be outside of her specific regular working hours. 

ii. How can an employer ensure that attendance will be considered “voluntary”?

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) classifies training as “voluntary” if (1) the employer does not require the employee to attend the training; and (2) the employee is not led to believe that her employment would be adversely affected if she does not attend the training. If an employer takes an adverse action against the employee as a result of her failure to attend the training, attendance clearly is not voluntary and the employee must be compensated. Therefore, an employer should explicitly convey to its employees that any voluntary training is not required and ensure that its supervisors and managers do not give any indication that non-attendance will result in an adverse employment action against the non-attending employee.

iii. When is a training considered “directly related to” an employee’s job?

Of all the factors set forth in the four-factor test, the question of whether training is directly related to an employee’s job generates the most employer uncertainty. In short, training is directly related to an employee’s job if it is designed to make her more effective in her position or to teach her something new she needs to know to perform her current job duties. Conversely, training is not directly related to an employee’s job when its primary focus is to prepare an employee for advancement or train her for another position, even if it results in incidental improvement to an employee’s ability to perform her regular duties. Furthermore, training is not considered to be directly related to an employee’s job when an employer’s non-mandatory training program is of general applicability and corresponds to courses offered by independent, bona fide institutions of learning.

Questions often arise as to whether non-mandatory training offered by the employer to facilitate attainment or renewal of a license, permit or certification is directly related to an employee’s job. For example, a hotel or spa may offer non-mandatory training sessions to its masseuses so that they can obtain their required licensure as massage therapists. Although the training would arguably make an employee more effective in her position as a masseuse, the program is of general applicability and corresponds to courses offered by other entities in accordance with the requirements of the state licensing division. Moreover, while the employee’s receipt of the license is mandatory, the employer’s training program is non-mandatory, as it is simply one means of achieving the required documentation. Consequently, as long as the training offered by the employer corresponds to the requirements outlined by the state licensing division, an employee’s attendance at the employer-sponsored program would not be compensable.

iv. What type of work performed during training constitutes “productive work”?

The DOL defines “productive work” as any work that an employer is able to use for business purposes. Therefore, so long as an employer does not permit an employee to actually perform work that could benefit it during the training session (as opposed to simply learning to perform such work), an employee would not be considered to have performed productive work during the training.  

Conclusion

Although the FLSA creates a presumption in favor of compensation for training sessions, there are many instances in which an employer in the hospitality industry is not required to pay employees for such time. As a result, hospitality employers should consistently evaluate their policies and practices regarding their training sessions to ensure they are not compensating employees for time when there is no obligation to do so.