DOL Obtains Judgment for $1.76 Million in Overtime Violations
- Article Information
- Published on Thursday, 28 April 2011 03:59
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) obtained a partial summary judgment requiring Hill Country Farms, to pay more than $1.76 million in back wages and other damages for allegedly violating the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The court concluded that the defendants willfully violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay 31 workers with disabilities. Henry's Turkey Service supplied the workers to a turkey processing plant, where most worked on the plant's processing line. According to Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis, "Working on a poultry processing line is a particularly difficult and dangerous jobHenry's Turkey Service exploited vulnerable employees who have a right to, and deserve, every penny that they earned." The DOL alleged that Henry's Turkey Service paid the disabled workers $65 a month in cash wages even when company time sheets reflected that the employees worked more than 40 hours a week. In addition to employing the workers, the company "provided in-kind care, room and board, serving as the workers' caretaker as well as the designated representative payee of their Social Security benefits. Henry's Turkey Service claimed credit for the food, housing and care against its wage obligation; however, the company also reimbursed itself for those expenses using the workers' Social Security benefits." The court found that the company failed to show that it incurred any costs above the amount received from the Social Security benefits and denied the credit toward the employees' wages....
Wage and Hour Violations Are Often Costly For Employers
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 01 April 2011 06:28
A recent case filed by the Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division highlights how costly wage and hour violations can be for employers. Following an investigation by the DOL, Arizona Pipeline Company has agreed to pay $750,000 in back wages to 740 employees. The company contracts with major utility companies to install underground utilities and specializes in gas distribution; long line pipeline; power distribution and transmission; fiber optics placement; engineering and design; and sewer, water and storm drains. DOL investigators determined that the company allegedly failed to pay employees for pre-shift and post-shift time required for loading and unloading material, cleaning trucks or picking up equipment. Additionally, the company allegedly did not compensate workers for travel time from the company yard to job sites and back, and the workers were apparently required to attend a one-hour monthly meeting that was unpaid. The company also allegedly docked a half-hour lunch time from employees' pay even though they typically had a 15-minute lunch period or worked through their lunch periods. According to Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis, "There is no excuse to deny workers the wages they have worked hard to earn. All businesses have an obligation to pay their employees fairly and must comply with federal labor lawsCheating workers out of time spent on the job whether performing work-related tasks, traveling or attending a meeting is unacceptable." The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid for attending required meetings, and for pre-shift and post-shift job duties. Employees also must be paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, plus overtime if applicable. Additionally, employers must maintain accurate time and payroll records....
Proposed Legislation Requires Higher Wages For Tipped Employees
- Article Information
- Published on Friday, 25 February 2011 16:59
Representative Donna Edwards (D. Md.) has introduced legislation that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) to establish a base minimum wage for tipped employees. The legislation is titled the "Working for Adequate Gains for Employment in Services Act" (WAGES Act), and it provides that the cash wages paid to tipped employees shall be no less than: (A) $3.75 an hour beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the Working for Adequate Gains for Employment in Services Act; (2) $5.00 an hour beginning 1 year after the date on which the change required by subparagraph (A) takes effect; and (C) beginning 2 years after the date on which the change required by subparagraph (A) takes effect and adjusted as necessary thereafter, 70 percent of the wage in effect under section 6(a)(1) but in no case less than $5.50 an hour....
9th Circuit Holds Employer Properly Classified Employees as Exempt Under Outside Sales Exemption
- Article Information
- Published on Monday, 14 February 2011 22:18
Two employees of GlaxoSmithKline (Glaxo), filed a lawsuit seeking back pay, claiming they were improperly classified as exempt from overtime, pursuant to the "outside salesman" exemption, and thus denied overtime pay that they should have received pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The employees worked as Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (PSRs) for Glaxo and were classified as "outside salesmen"a legal designation that exempts an employee from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirement. The district court found for Glaxo and the employees appealed. An "outside salesman" refers to an employee whose primary duty is sales, and who is primarily and regularly engaged away from the employer's place of business in performing those duties. An employee's "primary duty" refers to the principal, main, major, or most important duty that the employee performs. The employer has the burden of proof to establish that the employee meets the exemption, and exemptions are "narrowly construed" against the employer. In this case, although the employees argued that they did not actually "sell" to physicians, on appeal to the 9th Circuit, the court held that the employee's job duties fit squarely within the parameters of this exemption, noting that they earned a salary of up to $100,000 per year, well above minimum wage, and they received bonuses as an incentive to increase sales. In addition, the court observed that "under Plaintiff's view, PSRs are not salespeople, despite the fact that more than 90,000 pharmaceutical representatives make daily calls on physicians for the purpose of driving greater sales."...
Court Rules Truck Drivers May Be Employees Not Independent Contractors
- Article Information
- Published on Wednesday, 02 February 2011 08:20
In this case, two truck drivers, who are members of the Teamsters Union, filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit against their employer, Bridge Terminal Transport, Inc. The truck drivers allege that they were employees of Bridge Terminal, hired to transport cargo between ports and the facilities of the company's customers. They also allege that Bridge Terminal Transport improperly classified them as independent contractors and thus failed to pay them minimum wages, failed to pay them all wages due upon discharge, and failed to provide them with itemized wage statements. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer holding that the truck drivers were independent contractors. However, on appeal the court reversed the trial court, holding that the case involves conflicting evidence that must be weighed by a trier of fact. The court noted that although the company argued that it did not control the manner and means by which the truck drivers hauled their loads, and that they did drive their own trucks, pay their own expenses, and decide when and where to take breaks, Bridge Terminal Transport executed a collective bargaining agreement which represented the truck drivers as "employees" and the company issued W-2s to the truck drivers and offered health benefits. The court thus concluded that "a reasonable trier of fact, considering the totality of the circumstances, might reasonably conclude that plaintiffs were employees of defendant."...
More Articles...
