Featured on Employment Law This Week: The Department of Labor (“DOL”) rolls back the 80/20 rule.

The rule prohibited employers from paying the tipped minimum wage to workers whose untipped side work—such as wiping tables—accounted for more than 20 percent of their time. In the midst of a federal lawsuit challenging the rule, the DOL reissued a 2009 opinion letter that states that the agency will not limit the amount of side work a tipped employee performs, as long as that work is done “contemporaneously” with the tipped work or for a “reasonable time” before or after that work. The letter was previously withdrawn by the Obama administration.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post.

Watch Paul DeCamp’s full segment here.

Our colleague  at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to our readers in the hospitality industry: “Supreme Court Prevents Successive Class Actions from Reviving Time-Barred Claims.”

In most wage and hour cases, each workweek gives rise to a separate claim, at least for statute of limitations purposes. Thus, an employee seeking payment for alleged off-the-clock work or an independent contractor claiming misclassification and entitlement to overtime ordinarily may seek back wages and related recovery only for work performed within a set amount of time—usually two to six years preceding the filing of the complaint, depending on the jurisdiction—preceding the filing of the complaint. …

Read the full post here.

Our colleagues Jeffrey H. Ruzal, Adriana S. Kosovych, and Judah L. Rosenblatt, attorneys in the Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice, co-authored an article in Club Director, titled “Recent Trends in State and Local Wage and Hour Laws.”

Following is an excerpt:

As the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) appears to have relaxed its employee protective policy-making and enforcement efforts that grew during the Obama administration, increasingly states and localities have enacted their own, often more protective, employee-protective laws, rules and regulations. To ensure full wage and hour compliance, private clubs should consult their HR specialists and employment counsel and be mindful of all state and local requirements in each jurisdiction in which they operate and employ workers. Here are just some of the recent wage and hour requirements that have gained popularity among multiple jurisdictions.

Click here to download the full version in PDF format.

Featured on Employment Law This Week: Under the recently signed Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress has amended the FLSA to address tip pools. The amendment prohibits employers from keeping employees’ tips or distributing any portion of the tips to managers or supervisors. Non-tipped, back-of-the-house employees, like cooks and dishwashers, may participate in tip pools when the employer pays at least the minimum wage and does not take a tip credit. The amendment also provides for enhanced damages and penalties when employees are deprived of tips.

Watch the segment below:

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: “Labor Issues in the Gig Economy: Federal Court Concludes That GrubHub Delivery Drivers are Independent Contractors under California Law.”

Following is an excerpt:

Recently, a number of proposed class and collective action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of so-called “gig economy” workers, alleging that such workers have been misclassified as independent contractors. How these workers are classified is critical not only for workers seeking wage, injury and discrimination protections only available to employees, but also to employers desiring to avoid legal risks and costs conferred by employee status.  While a number of cases have been tried regarding other types of independent contractor arrangements (e.g., taxi drivers, insurance agents, etc.), few, if any, of these types of cases have made it through a trial on the merits – until now.

In Lawson v. GrubHub, Inc., the plaintiff, Raef Lawson, a GrubHub restaurant delivery driver, alleged that GrubHub misclassified him as an independent contractor in violation of California’s minimum wage, overtime, and expense reimbursement laws.  In September and October 2017, Lawson tried his claims before a federal magistrate judge in San Francisco.  After considering the evidence and the relevant law, on February 8, 2018, the magistrate judge found that, while some factors weighed in favor of concluding that Lawson was an employee of GrubHub, the balance of factors weighed against an employment relationship, concluding that he was an independent contractor. …

Read the full post here.

As 2017 comes to a close, recent headlines have underscored the importance of compliance and training. In this Take 5, we review major workforce management issues in 2017, and their impact, and offer critical actions that employers should consider to minimize exposure:

  1. Addressing Workplace Sexual Harassment in the Wake of #MeToo
  2. A Busy 2017 Sets the Stage for Further Wage-Hour Developments
  3. Your “Top Ten” Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities
  4. 2017: The Year of the Comprehensive Paid Leave Laws
  5. Efforts Continue to Strengthen Equal Pay Laws in 2017

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF.

Our colleagues , at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “New Jersey’s Appellate Division Finds Part C of the “ABC” Independent Contractor Test Does Not Require an Independent Business

Following is an excerpt:

In a potentially significant decision following the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015), a New Jersey appellate panel held, in Garden State Fireworks, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“Sleepy’s”), Docket No. A-1581-15T2, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2468 (App. Div. Sept. 29, 2017), that part C of the “ABC” test does not require an individual to operate an independent business engaged in the same services as that provided to the putative employer to be considered an independent contractor. Rather, the key inquiry for part C of the “ABC” test is whether the worker will “join the ranks of the unemployed” when the business relationship ends. …

Read the full post here.

A Full Menu of Potential Legal Issues for Hospitality Owner/OperatorsIn the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine important and evolving issues confronting owners, operators, and employers in the hospitality industry:

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF.

A New Year and a New Administration: Five Employment, Labor & Workforce Management Issues That Employers Should MonitorIn the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine five employment, labor, and workforce management issues that will continue to be reviewed and remain top of mind for employers under the Trump administration:

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF. Also, keep track of developments with Epstein Becker Green’s new microsite, The New Administration: Insights and Strategies.

Brian W. Steinbach
Brian W. Steinbach

In rejecting the terms of a collective action settlement in Yun v. Ippudo USA Holdings, No. 14-CV-8706 (S.D.N.Y. March 24, 2016) the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has confirmed the significance of last year’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2015)Cheeks held that parties cannot enter into an enforceable private settlement of Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims without the approval of either the district court or the Department of Labor. Yun shows what this means in practice by highlighting the issues that may arise in seeking to obtain approval.

Yun involved 53 “Collective Members” – five “Named Plaintiffs” and 48 “Opt-In Plaintiffs.” The Court closely analyzed the terms of a proposed settlement agreement, guided by various previous decisions within the Southern District. It had little trouble finding that a recovery for the Collective Members of about 52% of estimated back wages was “fair and reasonable” due to the presence of certain defenses and the litigation risks of proceeding to trial. It also found that service awards to the five Named Plaintiffs totaling 5% of the settlement funds were also “fair and reasonable.” And it also found that a fee award representing one-third of the total recovery was appropriate, rather than a lower fee based on lodestar rates, particularly as the case settled relatively early and before any depositions occurred.

However, the court rejected a limited confidentiality provision that would require all the Collective Members to keep the aggregate settlement amount confidential. In so doing it rejected the Defendants’ argument that the aggregate amount created a “false and disproportional sense of culpability and liability,” particularly as the information was already disclosed in numerous places on the public record through ECF filings. It also emphasized that generally “confidentiality provisions in FLSA settlements are contrary to public policy.”

Finally, the court rejected release language for the Named Plaintiffs that waived not only the right to bring claims relating to payment of compensation (as did the release language for the Opt-In Plaintiffs), but also any and all other claims of any type that they might have against the Defendants. Following other, pre-Cheeks Southern District precedent, it held that while releases in an FLSA settlement may include claims not presented that arise from the same factual predicate as the settled conduct, they cannot include waivers of claims that have no relationship to wage and hour issues. As a consequence, the court ordered the parties to file a revised settlement proposal.

The Yun decision is a warning to FLSA settling parties that the Cheeks decision not only means settlement agreements must be submitted for approval, but also that approval will not be a mere rubber stamp, and provisions that the court feels are overreaching will be rejected. Employers as well as plaintiffs’ attorneys need to review local precedents as to what provisions will and won’t be approved.