Andrew Frisch
E.D.N.C.: Travel Expenses And Costs Of Work Materials (Not General Materials) As Well As Housing Costs Constituted Illegal Deductions To H-2B Visa’d Workers Pay
Garcia v. Frog Island Seafood, Inc.
This lawsuit arises from Defendants’ alleged underpayment of wages and record-keeping violations during Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants. Plaintiffs are citizens of Mexico who were admitted as temporary foreign workers under the H-2B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b), to work in Defendants’ seafood processing plant as “crab pickers.” During 2004-2006, Defendants sought permission to bring Mexican nationals to work in their seafood processing plant by filing annually an Application for Alien Employment Certification, Form ETA 750A (“Clearance Orders”) with the United States DOL. Each Clearance Order set forth the number of workers requested by Defendants, the period of employment, the type of work and rate of pay being offered by Defendants. Id. The DOL approved the terms of work described in Defendants’ Clearance Orders, and granted their request for H-2B visas to allow Plaintiffs to fill the jobs described in those orders.
The relevant facts were that, “[e]ach of the plaintiffs and putative members of the FLSA and NCWHA plaintiff classes paid his or her own transportation, visa, passport and border crossing costs-expenses not reimbursed by Defendants. Defendants required Plaintiffs to use knives while performing certain tasks in the course of Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants. Defendants provided Plaintiffs with the knives at no cost at the beginning of the season; however, Plaintiffs were advised that replacement knives would be deducted from their wages. Such deductions were made without obtaining Plaintiffs’ written authorizations. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs rented housing provided by Defendant Frog Island Seafood (“FIS”). Defendant FIS did not register the housing with the NCDOL prior to furnishing it to Plaintiffs. Due to the unpredictability of crab supply, Plaintiffs worked variable hours each week. Id. at 15.
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint sets forth three causes of action pursuant to the FLSA, the NCWHA and North Carolina contract law. First, Plaintiffs assert an FLSA claim with a proposed opt-in plaintiff class under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), alleging violations of the federal minimum wage provision by (1) not reimbursing Plaintiffs for transportation, passport, visa and border crossing fees in the first workweek, which effectively brought Plaintiffs’ first week’s wages below the federal minimum wage; (2) deducting the costs of replacement knives from Plaintiffs’ pay and requiring Plaintiffs to purchase items required for work, to the extent these deductions and purchases reduced wages below the minimum wage; and (3) charging rent for housing that (a) exceeded the actual cost and included a profit to Defendants, (b) resulted in a reduction of the wages paid to Plaintiffs to an amount or rate below the minium wage; and (c) violated the North Carolina Migrant Housing Act (“NCMHA”).
Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to Defendants’ liability on the following claims; (1) violation of the FLSA for (a) failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for pre-employment expenses (referred to as de facto wage deductions); (b) deducting the costs of knives from Plaintiffs’ wages to the extent such costs brought Plaintiffs’ wages below the minimum wage; (c) failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for uniform expenses (e.g., boots) to the extent these expenses reduced Plaintiffs’ wages below the minimum wage (d) collecting rent for housing that violated the NCMHA; (2) violation of the NCWHA for (a) failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for de facto wage deductions and (b) failing to obtain Plaintiffs’ written authorizations prior to deducting the costs of knives from Plaintiffs’ wages; and (3) violation of the terms of the Clearance Order “contracts.” The Court granted Plaitniffs’ Motion in part and denied it in part, taking each issue separately.
“1. Defacto wage deductions for transportation and pre-employment expenses
Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to reimbursement of their pre-employment expenses (transportation, visa, passport and border crossing costs), because these expenses operated as de facto deductions from Plaintiffs’ first week’s wages and violated the FLSA and the NCWHA to the extent these deductions reduced their wages below the minimum wage and promised wage, respectively. See Pls .’ Mem. at 14-18, 21; see also id., Joint Stipulations ¶ [DE-27 .2], (“Jt.Stipulations”), Ex. 1 (stipulating that if the amount each named plaintiff paid for said expenses is subtracted from his or her first week’s wages in 2005 and 2006, each named plaintiff earned less than the minimum wage for that workweek).
a. FLSA
Under the FLSA, an employer is required to pay each employee wages at or above the minimum wage rate each workweek, see29 U.S.C. § 206, and such wages must be paid “finally and unconditionally or ‘free and clear.’ ” 20 C.F.R. § 531.35. The FLSA defines “wage” to include both cash wages and the reasonable cost of providing “board, lodging, or other facilities;” thus, an employer may count these costs toward satisfying its minimum wage obligations. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m); see also De Luna-Guerrero v. N.C. Grower’s Ass’n, 338 F.Supp.2d 649, 656 (E.D.N.C.2004). “In other words, when the employer pays for ‘board, lodging, or other facilities,’ it may add the costs of those facilities to the cash wage for purposes of complying with the FLSA minium (sic).” Rivera v. Brickman Group, Ltd., No. 05-1518, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167, at *26, 2008 WL 81570, at *7 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 7, 2008). An employer may not deduct from employee wages the cost of facilities which primarily benefit the employer if such deductions drive wages below the minimum wage. See29 C.F.R. § 531.36(b). Moreover, an employer cannot avoid this rule “by simply requiring employees to make such purchases on their own, either in advance of or during the employment.” See Arriaga, 305 F.3d at 1236 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 531.35).
Plaintiffs rely on Arriaga, which held that H-2A employers must reimburse H-2A workers for their transportation, visa and recruitment expenses, see Arriaga, 305 F.3d at 1242; see also De Luna-Guerrero, 338 F.Supp.2d at 656 (same as to H-2A workers’ transportation and visa expenses), and the district court cases which extended Arriaga to the H-2B context, see, e . g., Rosales v. Hispanic Employee Leasing Program, LLC, No. 1:06-CV-877, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9756, at *3, 2008 WL 363479, at *1 (W.D.Mich. Feb. 11, 2008), for the proposition that the FLSA obligates H-2B employers to reimburse guest workers for their transportation, border crossing, visa and passport expenses. See Pls.’ Mem. at 14. Apparently in reliance on the De Luna-Guerrero holding as to the transportation and visa expenses incurred by H-2A workers, Defendants conceded liability as to these same expenses incurred by Plaintiffs, although both parties acknowledge questions of fact remain as to damages.
Subsequent to the filing of the parties’ motions in this case, however, the USDOL issued a December 2008 interpretation stating inter alia that Arriaga was wrongly decided and the FLSA and its implementing regulations did not require H-2B employers to reimburse guest workers for relocation expenses. SeeLabor Certification Process and Employment for H-2B and Other Technical Changes, 73 Fed.Reg. 78020, 78039-41 (Dec. 19, 2008) (explaining “an H-2B worker’s payment of his … relocation [i.e., transportation] expenses does not constitute a ‘kick-back’ to the H-2B employer within the meaning of 29 CFR 531.35,” and “Arriaga and the district courts that followed its reasoning in the H-2B context misconstrued the [DOL’s] regulations and are wrongly decided”). On March 26, 2009, the DOL published a Notice wherein the “DOL with [drew] the FLSA [December 2008] interpretation at …73 Fed.Reg. 78039-41 for further consideration….”Withdrawal of Interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act Concerning Relocation Expenses Incurred by H-2A and H-2B Workers, 74 Fed.Reg. 13261, 13262 (Mar. 26, 2009). The now-withdrawn section of the December 2008 interpretation contained the DOL’s opinion that the FLSA and its implementing regulations did not require H-2B employers to reimburse guest workers for relocation expenses, even when such costs result in the workers being paid less than minimum wage. See73 Fed.Reg. 78039-41.
Given the time that has transpired since the filing of the motions by the parties, this court, while aware the interpretation was withdrawn simply for “further consideration,” id. at 13262, is unwilling to allow the case to remain idle until the DOL decides whether to adopt the withdrawn interpretation. Accordingly, finding the Arriaga and De-Luna rationale persuasive in the H-2B context, this court finds the transportation costs incurred by Plaintiffs operated as de facto deductions and that Defendants are liable to the extent these deductions drove Plaintiffs’ first week’s wages below the statutory minimum. The court considers border crossing expenses to be part of a worker’s transportation expense as border crossing expenses are analogous to paying a toll road fee.
Turning to the visa and passport expenses incurred by Plaintiffs, caselaw supports Plaintiffs’ argument that these expenses are “for the primary benefit and convenience” of Defendants and thus are not “other facilities” that can be counted as wage credits pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(m).See, e.g., Rosales, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9756, at *3, 2008 WL 363479, at * 1;
Morales-Arcadio v. Shannon Produce Farms, Inc., No. 605CV062, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51950, at *50, 2007 WL 2106188, at *17 (S.D.Ga. July 18, 2007); Avila-Gonzalez v. Barajas, No. 2:04-cv-567-FtM-33DNF2006, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9727, at *10, 2006 WL 643297, at *3 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 2, 2006); but compare Rivera v. Brickman Group, Ltd., No. 05-1518, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1167, at *26, 2008 WL 81570, at *7 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 7, 2008) (holding visa expenses should be reimbursed but not passport expenses). The DOL’s March 2009 Notice, while focusing specifically on relocation expenses (also described as “inbound travel expenses”), arguably provides further support of Plaintiffs’ position. In particular, the DOL states that its interpretation of the FLSA “concerns important issues as to whether various pre-employment expenses incurred by workers lawfully may result in workers’ weekly wages being reduced below the minimum wage.”74 Fed.Reg. 13261, 13262 (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, the recently amended federal regulations applicable to the H-2B temporary labor certification process provide that H-2B employers are “not prohibit[ed]… from receiving reimbursement for costs that are the responsibility of the worker, such as government required passport or visa fees.” 20 CF.R. § 655.22(g)(2) (emphasis added). Given the DOL’s regulations speak directly to the issue of passport and visa expenses, the court respectfully disagrees with caselaw finding otherwise. Therefore, as to reimbursement of pre-employment expenses, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, Defendants are liable for reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ transportation and border crossing expenses as a matter of law to the extent these expenses reduced Plaintiffs’ first week’s wages below the minimum wage. However, as a matter of law, Defendants are not liable for the reimbursement of Plaintiffs’ passport and visa expenses.
Plaintiffs allege that their boot expenses, a required work item, operated as de facto wage deductions and violated the FLSA and NCWHA FN9 to the extent these deductions reduced Plaintiffs’ wages below the minimum wage and promised wage, respectively, in any given workweek. Pls.’ Mem. at 20. Plaintiffs contend further that Defendants are liable under (1) the FLSA for actual deductions of the cost of replacement knives from Plaintiffs’ wages to the extent those deductions reduced wages below the minimum wage; and (2) the NCWHA for failing to obtain Plaintiffs’ written authorizations prior to deducting the costs of replacement knives from Plaintiffs’ wages. Id.
i. Boots
If an employer requires an employee to purchase an item which is “specifically required for the performance of the employer’s particular work, there would be a violation of the [FLSA] in any workweek when the cost of such [item] purchased by the employee cuts into the minimum … wages required to be paid him under the [FLSA].”29 C.F.R. § 531.35; see also29 C.F.R. § 531.32(c) (explaining the cost to the employer of purchasing items, such as uniforms, are primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer and may not therefore be included in computing wages); 13 N .C.A.C. § 12.0301(d) (explaining that under the NCWHA, “[i]tems which are primarily for the benefit of the employer and which will not be computed as wages include … uniforms, where the business requires the employee to wear a unique or customized uniform). In this case, Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs were required to wear rubber boots, which Plaintiffs bore the responsibility of purchasing. However, Defendants contend Plaintiffs failed to establish that “any such deductions ever reduced their wages below minimum wage.”Defs.’ Resp. at 11-12 [DE-37]. Indeed, Plaintiffs supply no evidence indicating that boot expenses reduced Plaintiffs’ wages below the minimum wage in contravention of the FLSA or the promised wage in contravention of the NCWHA. In fact, Plaintiffs state only that their purchase of boots operated as de facto deductions. See Pls.’ Mem. at 21. Accordingly, as to reimbursement for the cost of boots, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.
ii. Knives
Generally, the costs an employer incurs purchasing and providing tools of trade, such as the knives in this case, may not be included in computing wages, since such items are “primarily for the benefit or convenience of the employer….”20 C.F.R. § 531.32(c). Nevertheless, deductions for the costs of such items “may … be made … if the employee … received the required minimum wages in cash free and clear; but to the extent they reduce the wages of the employee in any such workweek below the minimum required by the [FLSA], they are illegal.”29 C.F.R. § 531.36(b). Defendants provided Plaintiffs with knives at no cost at the beginning of the season; however, Plaintiffs were advised that replacement knives would be deducted from their wages. Defendants admit requiring Plaintiffs to use certain knives for crab picking, and making nine dollar deductions from Plaintiffs’ pay for replacement knives. However, Defendants contend the nine dollar deductions did not reduce Plaintiffs’ wages below the required minimum and fault Plaintiffs for failing to prove that such deductions “were a daily or even a weekly event.”
Despite Defendants’ contention to the contrary, liability under the FLSA is not dependent on any specified frequency of deductions. Rather, compliance with the FLSA is measured by the workweek, see29 C.F.R. § 776.4; thus, the issue is whether any deduction occurring during a particular workweek reduced a worker’s wages for that workweek below the minimum wage. A review of Defendants’ payroll records reveals instances in which the nine-dollar deduction for the cost of a replacement knife during a particular week did reduce a worker’s wages for that week below the minimum wage. For example, during the week of May 19, 2005, Plaintiff Mercedalia Hernandez Garcia (“Mercedalia”) worked 37.53 hours at a rate of $5 .17 per hour, grossing $194.03. After a nine dollar deduction for the cost of the replacement knife, Mercedalia’s wages were reduced to $185.03 ($194.03-$9.00), which equates to an hourly rate of $4.93 ($185.03/37.53 hours). Accordingly, Defendants must reimburse Plaintiffs up to the point that the minimum wage is met, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Defendants’ liability regarding replacement knives is ALLOWED.
3. Housing costs
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are not entitled to claim the costs of any housing provided to Plaintiffs toward the minimum wage requirements under the FLSA because the housing was furnished in violation of the NCMHA. In particular, Plaintiffs contend Defendants were not properly authorized to house H-2B workers as a result of Defendants’ technical, as opposed to substantive, violation of the NCMHA.
If housing is “customarily furnished” by the H-2B employer as a part of wages, then the cost to the employer of furnishing an employee with housing can be included in determining the employer’s compliance with the minimum wage requirement promulgated under the FLSA. 29 U.S.C. § 203(m); see also29 C.F.R. § 531.31 (defining “customarily furnished”). However, housing is not considered “customarily furnished” when it is furnished in violation of federal, state or local law. 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 (emphasis added). Pursuant to the NCMHA, migrant housing shall be inspected for compliance with federal and state law prior to occupancy. SeeN.C. Gen.Stat. § 95-226. In this case, Defendants admit to a technical violation of this state law in that they failed to register the H-2B workers’ housing with the NCDOL, and failed to have the housing inspected prior to Plaintiffs’ occupancy. As a result of Defendants’ violation of state law, Plaintiffs contend housing provided by Defendants cannot be considered an item “customarily furnished” under the FLSA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs maintain that the cost to Defendants of furnishing housing cannot be credited toward Defendants’ minimum wage requirements.
After reviewing applicable case law the Court explained, “Plaintiffs concede “there was no finding in this case that the housing rented to [them] was ‘substandard,’ ” but contend any violation of federal, state or local law prohibits Defendants from legally deducting the cost of housing from their wages. Pls.’ Reply at 9 [DE-45] (citing Strong v. Williams, No. 78-124-Civ-TG, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14185, 1980 WL 8134 (M.D.Fla. Apr. 22, 1980), Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir.1993) and Chellen v. John Pickle Co., 446 F.Supp.2d 1247 (N.D.Okla.2006)). Upon review of the cases cited above by Plaintiffs, the court finds that only Strong supports Plaintiffs’ position. In Strong, the court found that an employer had rented housing to a migrant farm worker while not authorized to do so under federal law. Strong, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14185, at * 13. Accordingly, the court held deductions from the worker’s wages for rent were unlawful and thus could not count as wages. Id.; see also Soler, 768 F.Supp. at 466 (describing employer’s argument that “substantial compliance” with state law barred the application of 29 C.F.R. 531.31 as “unfounded” as the regulation “explicitly provides that housing deductions are not permitted for ‘facilities furnished in violation of any Federal, State, or local law’ “). Given the explicit directive of 29 C.F.R. § 531.31 and Defendants’ admitted violation thereof, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to Defendants’ liability is ALLOWED.”
Thus the Court 1. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion as to Defendants’ liability (a) under the FLSA and NCWHA for reimbursement of transportation and border crossing expenses to the extent these expenses reduced Plaintiffs’ first week’s wages below the minimum wage and promised wage, respectively; (b) under the FLSA for actual deductions of the costs of replacement knives from Plaintiffs’ wages to the extent these deductions reduced Plaintiffs’ wages below the minimum wage; (c) under the NCWHA for deducting the costs of replacement knives without written authorization in violation of N.C .G.S. § 95-25.8; and (d) under the FLSA for crediting housing costs toward their minimum wage obligations. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for relief in the form of actual damages remains viable and denied Plaintiffs’ motion as to (a) Defendants’ liability under the FLSA and NCWHA for reimbursement of passport, visa and boot expenses; (b) relief in the form of liquidated damages as to all violations of the FLSA and NCWHA; (c) any claim for willful violations of the FLSA; and (d) Defendants’ liability under the North Carolina common law contract claim, dismissing the latter claims.
9th Cir.: Court Abused Its Discretion In Finding Predominance Requirement Satisfied, Based-In Large Part-On Employer’s Internal Policy Of Treating Its Employees As Exempt From Overtime
In re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litigation
The case was before the Court on Defendant’s interlocutory appeal, challenging the reasoning of the lower Court in granting class certification on Plaintiff’s California state law claims. The dispute centered around whether the lower court abused its discretion in finding that the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) was satisfied, based-in large part-on an employer’s internal policy of treating its employees as exempt from overtime laws. The Ninth Circuit, remanded for further factual findings, holding that while such uniform exemption policies are relevant to the Rule 23(b)(3) analysis, it is an abuse of discretion to rely on such policies to the near exclusion of other relevant factors touching on predominance.
Analyzing the issue, the Court stated, “[u]nder Rule 23(b)(3), a class may be certified where “the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.”Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry of Rule 23(b)(3) asks “whether proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Local Joint Executive Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir.2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The focus is on “the relationship between the common and individual issues.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir.1998).
The question here is whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Rule 23(b)(3)‘s predominance requirement was met based on Wells Fargo’s internal policy of treating all HMCs as exempt from state and federal overtime laws. To succeed under the abuse of discretion standard, Wells Fargo must demonstrate that the district court either (a) should not have relied on its exemption policy at all or (b) made a clear error of judgment in placing too much weight on that single factor vis-a-vis the individual issues.
The first line of attack, that Wells Fargo’s exemption policy was an impermissible factor, is a non-starter. An internal policy that treats all employees alike for exemption purposes suggests that the employer believes some degree of homogeneity exists among the employees. This undercuts later arguments that the employees are too diverse for uniform treatment. Therefore, an exemption policy is a permissible factor for consideration under Rule 23(b)(3).
Wells Fargo’s arguments are better construed as a challenge to the weight accorded to the internal exemption policies under the third abuse of discretion prong: mulling the proper factors but committing clear error in weighing them. To analyze this question, we first ask how much weight the district court gave to the exemption policy. Plaintiffs suggest the weight was minimal; Wells Fargo claims that the district court’s reliance was tantamount to estoppel.
A review of the California certification order lends substantial credence to Wells Fargo’s position. Although the court’s analysis of each exemption was careful and considered, its ultimate decision was clearly driven by Wells Fargo’s uniform exemption policy. Indeed, the court found “serious issues regarding individual variations among HMC job duties and experiences” but nevertheless concluded that common questions predominated because “it is manifestly disingenuous for a company to treat a class of employees as a homogenous group for the purposes of internal policies and compensation, and then assert that the same group is too diverse for class treatment in overtime litigation.”E.R. 17. As such, we must conclude that the district court’s reliance on Wells Fargo’s internal exemption policy was substantial.
This leads to the central question: whether such heavy reliance constituted a clear error of judgment in assaying the predominance factors. District courts within this circuit have split on the relevance of exemption policies. The district court relied primarily on Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 231 F.R.D. 602, 612-13 (C.D.Cal.2005), which found predominance of common issues based on an employer’s policy of treating all employees in a certain position as uniformly exempt from overtime compensation requirements. In contrast, another district court has expressed doubt about Wang, and found that uniform exemption policies are merely a minor factor in the predominance analysis. See Campbell v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 253 F.R.D. 586, 603-04 (E.D.Cal.2008) (rejecting “estoppel” position of Wang ).
In determining which rule is appropriate, we begin by examining Rule 23 itself. A principal purpose behind Rule 23 class actions is to promote “efficiency and economy of litigation.” Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, 553 (1974). In particular, Rule 23(b)(3)‘s predominance and superiority requirements were added “to cover cases’in which a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote … uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated, without sacrificing procedural fairness or bringing about other undesirable results.'” Anchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 615 (1997) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) Adv. Comm. Notes to 1966 Amendment). Thus, the ” ‘notion that the adjudication of common issues will help achieve judicial economy’ ” is an integral part of the predominance test. Zinser v. Accufix Research Inst., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1189 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir.1996)). Whether judicial economy will be served in a particular case turns on close scrutiny of “the relationship between the common and individual issues.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022.
Viewed in light of these principles, the rule espoused in Wang has little justification. Wang essentially creates a presumption that class certification is proper when an employer’s internal exemption policies are applied uniformly to the employees. Such an approach, however, disregards the existence of other potential individual issues that may make class treatment difficult if not impossible. Indeed, this case is a prime example, as the district court identified “serious issues regarding individual variations” that were not susceptible to common proof, but nevertheless felt compelled to certify the class.
Of course, uniform corporate policies will often bear heavily on questions of predominance and superiority. Indeed, courts have long found that comprehensive uniform policies detailing the job duties and responsibilities of employees carry great weight for certification purposes. Damassia v. Duane Reade, Inc., 250 F.R.D. 152, 160 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (“Where … there is evidence that the duties of the job are largely defined by comprehensive corporate procedures and policies, district courts have routinely certified classes of employees challenging their classification as exempt, despite arguments about ‘individualized’ differences in job responsibilities.”). Such centralized rules, to the extent they reflect the realities of the workplace, suggest a uniformity among employees that is susceptible to common proof.
But Wells Fargo’s blanket application of exemption status, whether right or wrong, is not such a rule. In contrast to centralized work policies, the blanket exemption policy does nothing to facilitate common proof on the otherwise individualized issues.
To illustrate, consider the federal outside salesperson exemption. This exemption applies where, among other things, the employee is “customarily and regularly away from the employer’s place of … business….”29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a). Often, this exemption will militate against certification because, as the district court noted, it requires “a fact-intensive inquiry into each potential plaintiff’s employment situation….” E.R. 11. A centralized policy requiring employees to be at their desks for 80% of their workday would change this individual issue into a common one. Therefore, such a corporate policy would be highly relevant to the predominance analysis. A uniform exemption policy, however, has no such transformative power. Whether such a policy is in place or not, courts must still ask where the individual employees actually spent their time. As one court succinctly explained, “[t]he fact that an employer classifies all or most of a particular class of employees as exempt does not eliminate the need to make a factual determination as to whether class members are actually performing similar duties.” Campbell, 253 F.R.D. at 603.
In short, Wells Fargo’s uniform exemption policy says little about the main concern in the predominance inquiry: the balance between individual and common issues. As such, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in relying on that policy to the near exclusion of other factors relevant to the predominance inquiry.”
E.D.Ark.: “Payroll Manager” Demonstrated Lack Of Discretion And Independent Judgment; Defendant’s SJ Motion On Administrative Exemption Denied
Reedy v. Rock-Tenn Co. of Arkansas
Plaintiff was, at points relevant to this case, Defendant’s “payroll manager.” The case was before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment, based on Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions under the administrative exemption. Finding issues of fact as to whether Plaintiff had the requisite discretion and independent judgment, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion.
The Court recited the following relevant facts, “Dolores Reedy worked at Rock-Tenn’s folding carton plant in Conway, Arkansas, from June 1986 until March 15, 2007, when she voluntarily resigned. Reedy, who has no college degree or formal accounting training, began as a temporary employee and later worked full-time as a payroll clerk. Rock-Tenn originally treated her as an hourly employee and paid her overtime. At some point, Reedy acquired the title of “Payroll Manager,” was paid on a salary basis, and stopped receiving overtime compensation.
Reedy was responsible for Rock-Tenn’s payroll. Rock-Tenn hired several assistants to work with Reedy in the payroll department, including Linda Suggs, Carolyn Hansen, and Denise Bent. Sometimes assistants worked only as temporary employees. Reedy’s responsibilities in the payroll department included maintaining employee files; wage garnishments; referring Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) matters to her immediate supervisor, Ken Hogan, or the Benefit Services Center; completing some Employment Eligibility Verification forms based on the documents in employees’ files; and responding to requests for information from the Arkansas Employment Security Department. At some point, Reedy composed a policy reference book for the payroll department.
Reedy says that after she stopped receiving overtime pay, she continued to log her hourly time and report her time to Hogan. She says she spoke with someone in Rock-Tenn’s corporate office about whether she should be exempt from overtime compensation under FLSA. Reedy also says that she and Hogan attended a class in which the instructors conducted an exercise to determine which persons were exempt under the FLSA, and Reedy says that at the end of the exercise she was in the group of persons who were not exempt. Reedy says that she discussed the exercise with Hogan, but Rock-Tenn made no changes to her exempt status.”
After a recitation of the relevant law, the Court applied same stating, “Reedy’s job title of “payroll manager,” standing alone, is of little use in determining whether she was exempt, and the Court must examine evidence relating to the nature of Reedy’s duties. See Lentz v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions, LLC, 2008 WL 269607, at *4 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 28, 2008). A reasonable jury could conclude that Reedy did not exercise discretion and independent judgment in her job as payroll manager. Therefore, the nature of Reedy’s duties and her position relative to the payroll assistants is a disputed issue of fact.
Regarding Reedy’s investigatory duties, Rock-Tenn asserts that she investigated alleged pay discrepancies and notified management if there were any problems requiring remedial action. Rock-Tenn argues that her investigatory duties were similar to those of the postal workers in Dymond, wherein the Eighth Circuit held that postal workers exercised discretion and independent judgment inasmuch as they determined when a situation required immediate action and whether an alleged violation was minor or required reporting to the United States Attorney for prosecution. Dymond, 670 F.2d at 95. Reedy responds that her investigatory responsibilities were distinguishable from the postal workers in Dymond.Reedy says that employees came to her about payroll discrepancies because she was the one who computed payroll, that she had no authority to issue a corrective check, and that she had to receive permission from management before taking any remedial action.
Reedy’s deposition testimony does not demonstrate that her payroll duties required independent judgment or discretion. She reviewed the payroll records in response to complaints; but she was not authorized to proceed with remedial action unless approved by management. Her responsibilities were more clerical than investigatory, unlike those of the postal inspectors in Dymond.Rock-Tenn has failed to show that, as a matter of law, her authority to investigate and remedy payroll discrepancies required the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
As to the completion of I-9s, Reedy responds that she received no special training qualifying her to recognize a fake employment form, that her job was merely to check the documents in the employee’s personnel file, and that she then signed the I-9s to indicate that Rock-Tenn did in fact have the proper documentation on a particular employee. Rock-Tenn replies that the fact that Reedy signed the I-9s under penalty of perjury-swearing that she had examined the employee’s documents-means that she had to compare and evaluate possible courses of conduct and use her common sense. Rock-Tenn cites to Haywood v. North Am. Van Lines, 121 F.3d 1066, 1073 (7th Cir.1997), for the proposition that an employee who uses common sense satisfies the discretion and independent judgment prong of the administrative employee exception. In that case, however, the Seventh Circuit mentioned “common sense” in a footnote, referencing the employer’s guidelines which informed its employees, whose job it was to negotiate with customers, that they had considerable latitude to negotiate and were to “just use [their] common sense.” Haywood, 121 F.3d at 1073 n. 8. The Seventh Circuit did not hold that every employee who exercises common sense in the performance of a job duty is exercising discretion and independent judgment, and Rock-Tenn has cited no cases holding that completing I-9s amounts to exercising discretion and independent judgment. Furthermore, other than the I-9s and Hogan’s affidavit, there is no other evidence relating to Reedy’s completion of the I-9s, and Reedy was not questioned about the I-9s in her deposition testimony.
As to Reedy’s communications with the Arkansas Employment Security Department, Reedy seemingly characterizes those communications as routine clerical work. Rock-Tenn, relying on Hogan’s affidavit, asserts that Reedy’s responses to the Department’s requests for information often triggered Rock-Tenn’s responsibility to pay unemployment benefits. However, Rock-Tenn offers no authority for the proposition that acting as a liaison between the employer and a governmental agency in and of itself rises to the level of exercising discretion and independent judgment. It is a disputed issue of fact whether Reedy’s work in this area was routine clerical work, providing information to a state department when requested, or actually involved discretion and independent judgment.
Regarding Reedy’s understanding and application of the FMLA, Reedy responds that she was merely instructed to look for certain “red flags” that could indicate that an employee might be asking for FMLA-qualifying leave. Reedy points to Hogan’s deposition, in which he stated that Reedy would bring a potential FMLA-related request to him, and he would make the final decision. Reedy also states that FMLA issues were ultimately referred to a separate entity, the Benefit Services Center. Therefore, Reedy argues, she had no authority to exercise discretion or make decisions regarding FMLA matters. Rock-Tenn replies that Reedy exercised discretion because she stated in deposition testimony that she “felt like [she] was understanding when to ask [Hogan] if [she] should offer an employee FMLA.”Because Reedy stated that she felt like she understood FMLA well enough to notify Hogan of a potential FMLA-related request, Rock-Tenn argues that she was exercising discretion and independent judgment. Reedy characterizes her testimony as showing that she merely looked for “red flags,” whereas Rock-Tenn characterizes her testimony as Reedy touting her ability to interpret and apply the FMLA. After reviewing Reedy’s deposition testimony, it is unclear that either party’s characterization is completely accurate. Thus, the degree to which Reedy actually exercised discretion and independent judgment in reviewing leave requests for FMLA issues and the nature of Reedy’s review of those requests are issues of fact best left to a jury to resolve.
As to Reedy’s job questionnaire responses indicating that she engaged in policy clarification and research, Reedy responds that Rock-Tenn has cited no authority for the proposition that doing research requires the use of discretion or independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. Reedy also states that she eventually had to suspend her research due to other obligations, and Rock-Tenn offers no evidence showing that Reedy actually engaged in research and policy clarification during the period of time relevant to her lawsuit. Furthermore, the record is inadequate to show that whatever research and policy clarification Reedy performed involved the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.
Finally, regarding Reedy’s involvement in garnishing wages, Reedy responds that her duties consisted of merely following the court orders and company procedure, and that Rock-Tenn offers no authority for the proposition that performing wage garnishments amounts to exercising discretion or independent judgment. Rock-Tenn argues that Reedy admitted in deposition testimony that she followed the applicable garnishment laws, and that following those laws required the use of discretion and independent judgment insofar as she was required to “interpret, construe, and explain the laws, policies, and regulations applicable to her work.”In her deposition testimony, however, Reedy stated only that she followed the court orders and the applicable laws regarding precedence when there were multiple garnishments. Reedy did not talk about interpreting, construing, and explaining the laws, policies, and regulations applicable to her work, as Rock-Tenn contends. Rather, it appears from her deposition testimony that, in her position as payroll manager, Reedy simply followed the court orders she received regarding garnishments and then followed the proper procedures where there were multiple garnishments. The nature of Reedy’s work with garnishments and the extent to which her garnishment work involved discretion or independent judgment are disputed issues of fact for a jury to decide.
In summary, issues of fact remain regarding the nature of Reedy’s duties and the extent to which they involved the exercise of discretion or independent judgment.”
U.S.Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.: First-Filed Venue Best Venue For FLSA MDL, Since Discovery Is Well Underway
In re Sepracor Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litigation
Defendant Sepracor Inc. (Sepracor) moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Middle District of Florida or, alternatively, the District of Massachusetts. Plaintiffs in an action pending in the District of Arizona action opposed the motion or, alternatively, suggested centralization in the District of Arizona. The Court was persuaded by the Plaintiffs in the Arizona action and transferred the MDL to that District stating:
“This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, one action each in the District of Arizona and the Middle District of Florida.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Each action brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and each alleges that defendants avoided paying overtime to employees classified as “pharmaceutical sales representatives.” Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the District of Arizona is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation, because the first-filed action is pending there and discovery is well underway in that action.”
NY Car Wash Chain Settles Unpaid Wages Claims For $3.4 Million
The New York Times is reporting that, “[a] New York carwash chain agreed to pay $3.4 million in back wages and liquidated damages to 1,187 current and former employees to resolve part of a lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Labor in August 2005.
The suit was filed against the chain, the Lage Management Corporation, based in Pelham Manor, N.Y., after an investigation found that its carwashes were not paying employees minimum wage, not paying them for overtime and not keeping adequate employment records. In three previous settlements in the case, more than 200 employees had already received more than $1.3 million in back wages and damages.”
To read the full article go to the New York Times website.
S.D.Fla.: Airport Shuttle Operating Within A Single State Without An Arrangement With The Air Carrier(s) Is Not Engaged In Interstate Commerce; MCA Exemption Inapplicable
Gilbert v. Southern Shuttle Services Inc.
This case was before the Court upon Defendant Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial (DE 90). The Motion is fully briefed and ripe for review, following a verdict for Plaintiffs, drivers for Defendant, a company that primarily provides transportation services to people who are going to and from local airports. Denying Defendant’s Motion, the Court explained the “interstate” travel requirements of a Defendant seeking to claim the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) Exemption in Order to avoid FLSA liability.
Discussing the issue before the Court, the Court stated, “Defendant challenges only the portion of the instruction regarding the interstate commerce requirement. (Mot. at 4-5). The Motor Carrier Exemption, 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1), mandates that overtime pay is not required for any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation (“Secretary”) has power to establish “qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to section 21502” of the Motor Carrier Act. Thus, the question of whether a plaintiff is exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(1) turns on whether the Secretary had such power with respect to the plaintiff. Baez v. Wells Fargo Armored Service Corp., 938 F.2d 180, 181 (11th Cir.1991).
A requirement of the motor carrier exemption is that the carrier transports persons by motor carrier between a place in a state and a place in another state or “in the practical continuity of movement in the flow of interstate commerce.”See Powell v. Carey Intern., Inc., 483 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1179 (S.D.Fla.2007); see also29 C.F.R. § 782.2 (“The activities of drivers … in connection with transportation which is not in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act provide no basis for exemption under section 13(b)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.”); see also McIntyre v. FLX of Miami, Inc., 2008 WL 4541017, *5 (S.D.Fla.2008) ( “Transportation within a single state may remain ‘interstate’ in character when it forms a part of a ‘practical continuity of movement’ across state lines from the point of origin to the point of destination.”) (citations omitted).
Even if the passengers came from or were destined to points in another state, the carrier is not engaged in interstate commerce if the carrier operates within a single state unless there is a “common arrangement” or through-ticketing between the motor carrier and the air carrier for continuous passage or interchange. See James T. Kimball-Petition for Declaratory Order, 131 M.C.C. 908, 1980 WL 14197 (1980) ((“Kimball” );Motor Transp. of Passengers Incidental to Air, 95 M.C.C. 526 (1964); see also Powell, 483 F.Supp.2d at 1179-82 (holding that plaintiffs limousine service drivers did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation for purposes of the Motor Carrier Exemption where there was insufficient evidence of through-ticketing arrangement between defendants and Virgin Atlantic); Rossi v. Associated Limousine Services, Inc., 438 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1362 (S.D.Fla.2006) ( “Notwithstanding, a through-ticketing arrangement must be between the motor carrier and air carrier for continuous passage in order to render the motor carrier’s operation interstate transportation. See In re Kimball, supra.Associated has no such arrangement with any air carrier.”). A common travel arrangement with a ground transportation company or a travel agency is insufficient to meet the interstate commerce requirement. See id.; Kimball, 131 M.C.C. at 918; Morrison v. Quality Transports Services, Inc., 474 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1310 (S.D.Fla.2007). The Court concludes that the instruction given was legally correct. Accordingly, the Court finds that it did not err in instructing the jury on the Motor Carrier Exemption.
Finally, the Court rejects Defendant’s claims that the evidence at trial established that it fell within the Taxicab and Motor Carrier Exemptions to the FLSA. The jury instructions were correct, both legally and in light of the evidence presented at trial, and the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.” Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion was denied.
7th Cir.: Although Internal Complaint OK To Trigger Anti-Retaliation Protections of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), Verbal Complaints Insufficient; Must Be Written
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Plaintiff Kevin Kasten appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation (“Saint-Gobain”). Kasten claims that the district court erred in its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act when it determined that Kasten had not suffered retaliation within the meaning of the statute. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The relevant testimony pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims were detailed as follows, “Plaintiff alleges (though defendant disputes) that from October through December, 2006, he verbally complained to his supervisors about the legality of the location of Saint-Gobain’s time clocks. Specifically, Kasten claims that he told his supervisors that the location of the Kronos clocks prevented employees from being paid for time spent donning and doffing their required protective gear. Regarding his complaints, plaintiff alleges (1) that he told Dennis Woolverton (his shift supervisor) that he believed the location of defendant’s time clocks was illegal; (2) that he told Lani Williams (a Human Resources generalist) that the location of the time clocks was illegal; (3) that he told April Luther (a “Lead Operator” and apparently another of Kasten’s supervisors) that the location of the time clocks was illegal; and (4) that he told Luther that he was thinking of commencing a lawsuit regarding the location of defendant’s time clocks. Saint-Gobain denies that Kasten ever told any of his supervisors or any human resources personnel that he believed that the clock locations were illegal.”
Throughout the period when Plaintiff claims he complained, he received several write-ups, and was ultimately terminated. He claimed that this retaliatory behavior resulted from his oral internal complaints (which the Defendant denied). Kasten filed suit under the FLSA, claiming that he had been terminated in retaliation for his verbal complaints regarding the location of the time clocks. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, finding that Kasten had not engaged in protected activity because he had not “filed any complaint” about the allegedly illegal location of the time clocks. Kasten appeals.
First, tackling the issue of internal complaints as a trigger for 215 protection, the Court determined they were, explaining, “The Seventh Circuit has not directly addressed whether internal complaints are protected activity under the FLSA’s retaliation provision, though we have reviewed two cases involving internal complaints without commenting on the matter. See Scott v. Sunrise Health Care Corp., 195 F.3d 938, 940-41 (7th Cir.1999) (affirming dismissal of FLSA retaliation case because plaintiff had not shown a causal connection between her complaints and her later discharge); see also Shea v. Galaxie Lumber Constr. Co., 152 F.3d 729, 731, 734-36 (7th Cir.1998) (reversing a denial of punitive damages in a case where an employee had been discharged after complaining to the company president).
Statutory interpretation begins with “the language of the statute itself [and] [a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852, 857 (7th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (interpreting retaliation provision of FLSA but not discussing whether internal complaints were protected conduct); see also Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102, 107 (1980). Here, the plain language of the statute indicates that internal, intracompany complaints are protected. The retaliation provision states that it is “unlawful for any person to discharge … any employee because such employee has filed any complaint…. “29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) (emphasis added). As Kasten points out, the statute does not limit the types of complaints which will suffice, and in fact modifies the word “complaint” with the word “any.” Thus, the language of the statute would seem to include internal, intra-company complaints as protected activity.
The majority of circuit courts considering the question have also found that “any complaint” includes internal complaints. See Hagan v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 529 F.3d 617, 625 (5th Cir.2008) (internal complaint constitutes protected activity); Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558 (6th Cir.2004) (informal complaints are protected activity); Lambert v. Ackerly, 180 F.3d 1004, 1004 (9th Cir.1999) (section 15(a)(3) protects “employees who complain about violations to their employers”); Valerio v. Putnam Associates, Inc., 173 F.3d 35, 41 (1st Cir.1999) (“By failing to specify that the filing of any complaint need be with a court or an agency, and by using the word ‘any,’ Congress left open the possibility that it intended ‘complaint’ to relate to less formal expressions of protest … conveyed to an employer.”); EEOC v.. White & Son Enterprises, 881 F.2d 1006, 1011 (11th Cir.1989) (employees’ internal complaints to supervisor about unequal pay were assertions of rights under the Equal Pay Act, part of the FLSA); Love v. RE/MAX of America, Inc., 738 F.2d 383, 387 (10th Cir.1984) (same); but see Ball v. Memphis Bar-B-Q Co., 228 F.3d 360, 363-365 (4th Cir.2000) (holding that 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) does not protect internal complaints).
Because we conclude, in line with the vast majority of circuit courts to consider this issue, that the plain language of 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) includes internal complaints as protected activity, we affirm the judgment of the district court in this regard.
The Court then turned to the sufficiency of unwritten/verbal complaints. “The next question pertinent to this appeal is whether unwritten, purely verbal complaints are protected activity under the statute.
Again, we start with the language of the statute. Sapperstein, 188 F.3d at 857. The FLSA’s retaliation provision prohibits “discharg[ing] … any employee because such employee has filed any complaint….”29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) (emphasis added). The district court reasoned:
Expressing an oral complaint is not the same as filing a complaint. By definition, the word “file” refers to “a collection of papers, records, etc., arranged in a convenient order,” Random House Webster’s College Dictionary 489 (2d ed.1999), or, when used in verb form as it is in the statute, “[t]o deliver (a paper or instrument) to the proper officer so that it is received by him to kept on file, or among the records of his office,” Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language 945 (2d ed.1958). One cannot “file” an oral complaint; there is no document, such as a paper or record, to deliver to someone who can put it in its proper place.
Plaintiff disagrees with this interpretation. He argues that “to file” is a broad term that has several meanings, including, generally, “to submit.”
Looking only at the language of the statute, we believe that the district court correctly concluded that unwritten, purely verbal complaints are not protected activity. The use of the verb “to file” connotes the use of a writing. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the verb “to file” as
1. to arrange in order for preservation and reference <“file letters”> 2. a: to place among official records as prescribed by law <“file a mortgage”> b: to perform the first act of (as a lawsuit) <“threatened to file charges against him”>
This definition accords with what we believe to be the common understanding of the verb “to file.” Although Kasten and the Secretary of Labor claim that “to file” can mean, generally, “to submit,” this seems to us overbroad. If an individual told a friend that she “filed a complaint with her employer,” we doubt the friend would understand her to possibly mean that she merely voiced displeasure to a supervisor. Rather, the natural understanding of the phrase “file any complaint” requires the submission of some writing to an employer, court, or administrative body. See United States v. Bank of Farmington, 166 F.3d 853, 860 (7th Cir.1999) (“Words in a statute are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning.”) (citing United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 604 (1986)).
Other circuit courts that have tackled this issue are split. The Fourth Circuit found that verbal complaints were not protected activity in Ball v. Memphis Bar-B-Q Co., Inc., 228 F.3d 360, 364 (4th Cir.2000). The court recognized that the FLSA’s “statutory language clearly places limits on the range of retaliation proscribed by the act.”Specifically, in interpreting the “testimony” clause of the FLSA’s retaliation provision, the Fourth Circuit held that the FLSA “prohibits retaliation for testimony given or about to be given but not for an employee’s voicing of a position on working conditions in opposition to an employer.”Id. (emphasis added). Although the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that the retaliation in that case-which followed an employee’s statement to the company president that, if he were deposed in a lawsuit, he would not testify to the president’s suggested version of events-was “morally unacceptable,” the court concluded that a faithful interpretation of the statute did not recognize mere statements to a supervisor as a protected activity. Id.; see also Lambert v. Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir.1993) (“The plain language of this provision limits the cause of action to retaliation for filing formal complaints, instituting a proceeding, or testifying, but does not encompass complaints made to a supervisor.”) (citations omitted).
Other courts have found oral complaints to be protected activity, but it is difficult to draw guidance from these decisions because many of them do not specifically state whether the complaint in question was written or purely verbal, and none discusses the statute’s use of the verb “to file” and whether it requires a writing. See EEOC v. Romeo Community Schools, 976 F.2d 985, 989-90 (6th Cir.1992) (holding, without discussion of the verbal/written distinction, that plaintiff’s apparently oral complaints to supervisors were protected activity); EEOC v. White & Son Enters., 881 F.2d 1006, 1011 (11th Cir.1989) (holding, without discussion of the verbal/written distinction, that plaintiffs’ oral complaints were protected activity); Brock v. Richardson, 812 F.2d 121, 125 (8th Cir.1987) (holding, without discussion of the verbal/written distinction, that defendant’s mistaken belief that plaintiff had made apparently oral complaints to supervisors was grounds for suit); Brennan v. Maxey’s Yamaha, 513 F.2d 179, 183 (8th Cir.1975) (holding, without discussion of the verbal/written distinction, that employee’s “voicing” of concern was protected activity).
Despite these contrary findings by some other circuits, our interpretation of the phrase “file any complaint” is confirmed by the fact that Congress could have, but did not, use broader language in the FLSA’s retaliation provision. For example, analogous provisions in other statutes, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, forbid employers from retaliating against any employee who “has opposed any practice” that is unlawful under the statutes. See42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); 29 U.S .C. § 623(d). This broader phrase, “opposed any practice,” does not require a “fil[ing],” and has been interpreted to protect verbal complaints. See, e.g., Kotcher v. Rosa and Sullivan Appliance Ctr., Inc., 957 F.2d 59, 65 (2d Cir.1992). Congress’s selection of the narrower “file any complaint” language in the FLSA thus appears to be significant. See Ball, 228 F.3d at 364 (noting that “Congress has crafted … broader anti-retaliation provisions elsewhere” but “the cause of action for retaliation under the FLSA is much more circumscribed”); Genesee Hospital, 10 F.3d at 55 (noting that the FLSA uses narrower language in its retaliation provision than Title VII).
Finally, we are aware that ” ‘the remedial nature of the [FLSA] … warrants an expansive interpretation of its provisions….’ ” Sapperstein, 188 F.3d at 857 (quoting Herman v. RSR Security Services, 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir.1999)). But expansive interpretation is one thing; reading words out of a statute is quite another. Because we believe that the FLSA’s use of the phrase “file any complaint” requires a plaintiff employee to submit some sort of writing, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Kasten’s alleged complaints were not protected activity under the statute.”
Thus, the Court affirmed the lower Court’s ruling, finding that Plaintiff’s internal, but verbal complaints were insufficient and therefore unprotected.
D.Idaho: “Sales Representative” Who Educated Retailers, But Did Not “Sell” To Customers, Not Subject To Outside Sales Exemption Under FLSA
Burling v. Real Stone Source, LLC
The case was before the Court on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment on exemption issues. The Court agreed with Plaintiff that he was not subject to the outside sales exemption, and further held that issues of fact precluded a finding regarding the applicability of the administrative exemption. Here, we discuss only the portion of the decision pertaining to the outside sales exemption.
The Court first recited the relevant facts, “Mr. Burling, was employed as a sales representative from March 15, 2006 to November 29, 2007 by Defendant Real Stone Source, LLC, d/b/a Rox Pro. Real Stone is a distributor of Rox Pro products which is a natural modular stone system used in construction. (Dkt. No. 28,Dkt. No. 27-3, p. 37). Real Stone products are distributed exclusively through a network of local dealers from whom the ultimate consumer buys the product. (Dkt. No. 26, Ex. E). Mr. Burling was hired as a Real Stone sales representative for a seven state area comprised of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Mr. Burling was tasked with contacting existing and potential local dealers and pitching Real Stone’s products to them. For prospective local dealers, Mr. Burling’s pitch was in an effort to get them interested in serving as a local dealer of Real Stone products. Once interested, Real Stone would determine whether the prospective dealer met its qualifications and, if so, approve them as a local dealer. For existing dealers, Mr. Burling continued to educate them on Real Stone Products and also aided them in selling Real Stone products through various efforts including promotions and outreach to consumers.”
Agreeing with Plaintiff, and the cases holding that the outside sales exemption can only apply where an employee makes actual sales, the Court said, “This Court finds the cases cited by Mr. Burling to be the correct analysis to apply here. See Kuzinski v. Schering Corp., 604 F.Supp.2d 385 (D.Conn. March 30, 2009). Although the California District Court cases cited by Real Stone discuss the FLSA, they were applying California Labor Law. Notably, the Barnick court recognized that there is a distinction between the FLSA and California Labor Law. There, the court stated that the employee’s argument that he was only promoting, not selling, because he never received commitments from the physicians was “likely a correct application of the distinction between promotion and sales laid down by the Department of Labor and several federal courts with regard to the FLSA” but that it did not apply to the California Labor Law. Barnick, 522 F.Supp.2d at 1264.FN2Where, as here, the case does not raise claims of California Labor Law but, instead, the FLSA, the analysis from cases applying the FLSA are more appropriately used. As such the Court will first consider whether Mr. Burling made sales as defined by the FLSA. See Kuzinski v. Schering Corp., 604 F.Supp.2d 385 (D.Conn. March 30, 2009).”
The Court adopted the reasoning of several of the pharmaceutical sales representative cases, stating, “[t]he Court finds Real Stone has failed its burden of demonstrating that, as a matter of law, Mr. Burling was an exempt outside salesperson. The facts in the record demonstrate that Mr. Burling did not make any sales. The Court rejects Real Stone’s theory that its sales representatives were a part of every sale in their territory. (Dkt. No. 27-3, pp. 109-111), (Dkt. No. 27-4, pp. 24, 51-52), (Dkt. No. 31-2, p. 103). Mr. Burling’s job was to create a network of local dealers, educate the local dealers and contractors about the product, and bolster consumer desire to purchase the product from the local dealers who in turn bought from Real Stone. (Dkt. No. 27-3, pp. 94-96). This is consistent in the depositions of both Mr. Burling and Mr. Motarex as well as Real Stone’s “Sales Philosophy and Market Strategy” document. (Dkt. No. 26-2, Ex. E), (Dkt. No. 27-3, pp. 96-111, Motarex Depo.), (Dkt. No. 27-3, pp. 54-66, Burling Depo.). Both Mr. Burling and Mr. Motarex testified that Real Stone sales representatives were hired to establish a network of dealers in their territory, provide sales support to those dealers by promoting the products and educating the consumers, and engaging in further advanced marketing strategies to “create buzz” for the products and increase consumer purchases from the dealers. (Dkt. No. 26-2, Ex. E). In sum, to “generate” and/or “drive” sales to the local dealers. (Dkt. No. 27-3, pp. 25-28), (Dkt. No. 31-2, pp. 93, 95-96).”
Ultimately, the Court concluded, “[b]ecause the facts here do not demonstrate that Mr. Burling actually made sales, the Court finds the outside salesperson exemption does not apply. Instead the facts show that Mr. Burling’s primary duty was to promote and market the Real Stone brand in such a way so as to create a network of local dealers in his territory and to bolster a market for the products such that consumers were continually buying the products from the local dealers. Accordingly, the Court will grant Mr. Burling’s motion for partial summary judgment on this point.”
Although not discussed at length here, the Court also analyzed the applicability of the claimed administrative exemption, before ultimately deciding issues of fact precluded a finding one way or another.
D.Md.: Although Defendant Is A Motor Carrier, Factual Issues Preclude SJ On Motor Carrier Exemption, Where School Bus Drivers Drive No More Than 2 Interstate Charter Trips Per Year On Average
Hoffman v. First Student, Inc.
In this FLSA case, both the Plaintiffs, school bus drivers, and Defendant, a motor carrier, who employed them, moved for summary judgment as to whether Plaintiffs were exempt employees under the motor carrier act (MCA) exemption to the FLSA. The Court denied both motions, finding that factual issues precluded a finding one way or another.
“Under the FMCSR, First Student was a “for-hire” private motor carrier of passengers, and its school bus drivers were subject to the federal safety regulations contained in 49 C.F.R. Parts 382, 383, 387, 390-96. The FMCSR’s regulatory guidance, which can be found on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (“FMCSA”) website at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov, sets forth the types of school bus services covered by the regulations. The FMCSA mandates that “anyone operating school buses under contract with a school is a for-hire motor carrier,” and when a “for-hire motor carrier transports children to school-related functions other than ‘school bus operation’ (as defined in 49 C.F.R. § 390.5), such as for “sporting events, class trips, etc., and operates across State lines,” the carrier is covered by the safety regulations. See FMCSR Regulatory Guidance Part 390.3, Question 14, available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov. Normal “school to home and home to school” driving activities are not covered. Id. In full accordance with this guidance, it was Defendant’s policy to pay its Baltimore bus drivers pursuant to the FLSA for “school to home and home to school” trips, but not for charter trips.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has determined that “if in the regular course of employment a driver is, or could be, called upon to transport a shipment in interstate commerce the driver would be subject” to the Department of Transportation’s jurisdiction and “even a minor involvement in interstate commerce as a regular part of an employee’s duties will subject that employee to the jurisdiction” of the Department of Transportation. See FMCSR Regulatory Guidance, Part 390.3, Question 24, at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor states that:
Where safety affecting employees have not made an actual interstate trip, they may still be subject to DOT’s jurisdiction if: (1) the employer is shown to have involvement in interstate commerce; and (2) it can be established that the employee could have, in the regular course of employment, been reasonably expected to make an interstate journey. See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Fact Sheet # 19: The Motor Carrier Exemption Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), available at http://www.dol.gov.
Thus, First Student posits that the drivers who volunteer to join its “charter pool” are categorically ineligible for overtime pay under the statutory and regulatory regime described above because: (1) FLSA’s overtime provisions do not apply to “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and hours of service,”29 U.S.C. § 213(b) (1), and (2) the Secretary of the Department of Transportation is authorized to prescribe the “qualifications” and “hours of service” of drivers in the “charter pool.”
Plaintiffs seek to avoid this result with two arguments. First, they point to an exception set out in the Motor Carrier Act which plausibly creates a categorical exclusion for school bus drivers from the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation. Second, plaintiffs contend that even if they are not categorically excluded from coverage under the Motor Carrier Act, First Student has not established the motor carrier defense as a matter of law (and summary judgment must be denied) because defendant has failed to demonstrate that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs’ involvement with interstate commerce is other than “trivial” and de minimis, or that interstate travel was a “natural, integral and … inseparable part of the position plaintiffs held,” Dauphin v. Chestnut Ridge Transportation, Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 266, 275 (S.D.N.Y.2008), and that proper evaluation of that defense must await trial.
As explained herein, I conclude that while defendant correctly contends that the motor carrier exemption defense is available, the record does not establish the elements of that defense as a matter of law. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the overtime claims is granted in part and denied in part 2.
The Motor Carrier Act (hereafter, “the MCA”) is found at 49 U.S .C. § 13501 et seq.Section 13501 gives the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (hereafter, “the Secretary”) jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers, and a separate section, 49 U.S.C. § 31502(b)(2), empowers the Secretary to set “qualifications” and “hours of service” for employees of interstate motor carriers. As a matter of law, First Student is a form of “motor carrier” within the jurisdiction of the MCA. However, certain types of interstate travel are not within the Secretary’s jurisdiction because they are exempted from the MCA.
One exemption excludes from the Secretary’s jurisdiction “a motor vehicle transporting only school children and teachers to or from school.”49 U.S.C. § 13506(a)(1). On its face, this exemption from the Act seems to mean that the routine carriage of students by the drivers employed by contract motor carriers such as defendant on behalf of local school districts renders the drivers eligible for overtime under the FLSA, i.e., that such employees are not within the class of employees “with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and hours of service.”29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1). And, the statutory term “to or from school” could reasonably be interpreted to include not only transportation “to or from [home to] school [and back],” but also “to or from school[, including any trips from school to other locations related to the educational mission of the school, such as school-sponsored field trips, and back to school.”] Put differently, one might justifiably infer that students on field trips and/or being transported to and from athletic contests almost always depart from and return to the school location at the beginning and end of such transportation.
Mielke v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 102 F.Supp.2d 988, 992 (N.D.Ill.2000), essentially adopted the above interpretation of the term “to or from school” in the MCA and reasoned that, categorically, “school bus operation” (which is the Secretary’s regulatory term, meaning “the use of a school bus to transport school children and/or school personnel from home to school and from school to home,”49 C.F.R. § 390.5), is outside of the Secretary’s jurisdiction and thus is not encompassed by the FLSA’s motor carrier exception. Specifically, the Mielke court concluded that “the phrase ‘to and from school’ includes transportation to or from school sponsored events.” 102 F.Supp.2d at 990 (citation omitted).
In reaching its conclusion that school bus drivers who drove on so-called “charter trips” were entitled to overtime notwithstanding the FLSA’s motor carrier exception, the Mielke court flatly rejected defendant’s argument that the MCA’s exception for “a motor vehicle transporting only school children and teachers to or from school” applied “only to tariff, licensing, and rate regulations” governing motor carriers, and not to the Secretary’s authority to prescribe school bus drivers’ “qualifications and maximum hours of service.”Id.
At the time the case at bar was filed in June 2006, Mielke was the sole opinion by a federal court interpreting and harmonizing the FLSA motor carrier exception with the MCA’s exclusion from the Secretary’s authority “a motor vehicle transporting only school children and teachers to or from school.”In Mielke, the former gave way to the latter and school bus drivers were deemed by the court entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.
There is now a second case elucidating this somewhat convoluted statutory and regulatory regime treating school bus drivers’ entitlement to overpay pay under the FLSA. Dauphin v. Chestnut Ridge Transportation, Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 266 (S.D.N.Y.2008). In Dauphin, the court declined to follow Mielke and reached a contrary conclusion, namely, that the FLSA motor carrier exception potentially applied to school bus drivers (essentially on a week-by-week, employee-by-employee basis, see 544 F.Supp.2d at 275 (“However, because this testimony fails to establish whether interstate travel was part of either plaintiff’s job duties during the entire period at issue in this litigation, the Court cannot determine whether the motor carrier exemption applies to them for all the relevant workweeks.”)). Thus, the motor carrier exception would exonerate the defendant in Dauphin provided that it could show “either that the activities of the individual plaintiffs involved interstate travel of a character that was more than de minimis or that interstate travel was a ‘natural, integral and … inseparable part’ of the position plaintiffs held.”Id.
Specifically, the Dauphin court concluded, contrary to Mielke, that the limitation on the Secretary’s jurisdiction to regulate “school bus operations” had no bearing on the Secretary’s ability to set “qualifications and maximum hours of service” for school bus drivers who operated school buses in interstate commerce. Id. at 272.That is, the court reasoned that § 13506‘s limitation on the Secretary’s jurisdiction applies only to the economic and licensing authority (found in Subtitle IV of the MCA), and not to the issue of qualifications and maximum hours of service (found in Subtitle VI of the MCA).Id. (citing Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distribs., Inc., 300 F.3d 217, 229 (2d Cir.2002)).
Dauphin readily acknowledged that, consistent with the statutory language in the MCA, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations except from certain regulations “[a]ll school bus operations,” pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 390.3(f).See 544 F.Supp.2d at 274. Nevertheless, the court concluded that this regulatory exclusion is not an indication that the Secretary does not have the authority to regulate school bus transportation; rather, it concluded, the exclusion reflects the Secretary’s determination that regulating home-to school and school-to-home transportation is not necessary for public safety. Id. (citing 53 Fed.Reg. 18,043 (May 19, 1988)).
I have carefully considered the conflicting approaches of the only two federal courts to have examined this awkward statutory regime. To be sure, Mielke’s approach is fully consistent with the well-settled doctrine that FLSA exemptions and exceptions are to be construed narrowly against the employer seeking to assert them, e.g., Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1960) (citing Mitchell v. Kentucky Fin. Co., 359 U.S. 290, 295, 79 S.Ct. 756, 3 L.Ed.2d 815 (1959)). Nonetheless, I am persuaded that some deference is owed to the Secretary’s interpretation of his authority, acquiesced in by the Department of Labor, see29 C.F.R. § 782.2(a), to regulate the qualifications and hours of service of interstate school bus drivers. Furthermore, I am persuaded by Judge Stein’s analysis in Dauphin that the broadly-worded exception set forth in the MCA does not extend to the qualifications and hours of service of interstate school bus drivers employed by motor carriers within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Accordingly, as in Dauphin, and contrary to Mielke, I conclude that the motor carrier defense is potentially applicable here.
Nevertheless, again as in Dauphin, the motor carrier exception defense cannot be applied on this record as a matter of law. Because an employee’s exempt status is an affirmative defense to a claim for non-payment at an overtime rate, the employer bears the burden of proving the exemption by clear and convincing evidence. Stricker v. Eastern Off Road Equip., Inc., 935 F.Supp. 650, 654 (D.Md.1996). Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence in the record shows that fewer than two interstate trips per year, on average, were worked by the employees in the First Student “charter pool” during the pendency of defendant’s contracts in Maryland. Moreover, as disclosed during the hearing in this case, each such driver seems to have had the option whether to accept an assignment to operate a vehicle outside of Maryland. See Dauphin, 544 F.Supp.2d at 274-76. Thus, to paraphrase Dauphin”whether the activities of [First Student’s] [former] drivers involve[d] interstate transportation of passengers in a way that would bring them within the scope of the motor carrier exemption from the FLSA” cannot be determined as a matter of law. Id. (alterations added).
Accordingly, I conclude that, as a matter of law, although the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to regulate the qualifications and hours of service of those members of the plaintiff class who volunteered for the “charter pool,” genuine disputes of material fact preclude a determination as a matter of law whether the FLSA motor carrier exception applies to any particular member of the plaintiff class for any particular work week. Therefore, as to the motor carrier exception, plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”
S.D.Ind.: Tow Truck Driver Exempt Under Motor Carrier Act (MCA), Because Might Be Called To Perform Interstate Wrecking Services
Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Service, Inc.
The case was before the Court on several motions for summary judgment. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption. This case contrasts the proof (and result) of a similar case discussed here yesterday.
The Court explained, “Defendant Hix Wrecker Service, Inc., (“HWS”) is an Indianapolis business that, as its name suggests, performs wrecker services; the remaining Defendants are individuals who manage and operate HWS. Plaintiff Bobby J. Johnson, Jr., worked for HWS for several months in 2006 as a tow truck driver. Johnson asserts several claims in his complaint. At issue in the instant motion is his claim that HWS violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., (“FLSA”), by failing to pay him overtime wages for occasions in which he worked more than forty hours in a given week. HWS argues that the FLSA overtime provisions were inapplicable to Johnson because the motor carrier exemption applied to him during his employment with HWS. The Court agrees.
The motor carrier exemption is found at 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1) and provides that “any employee with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service pursuant to the provisions of section 31502 of Title 49” is exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Among other things, 49 U.S.C. § 31502 extends the Secretary of Transportation’s power to “employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier” that transports property across state lines. “The Secretary has the power to set maximum hours for drivers if the company engages in more than de minimis interstate commerce, and that includes a company that holds itself out as an interstate company and solicits that business even though its prospect of obtaining much of that business is poor and some of its drivers never drive in interstate commerce.” Garcia v. Pace Suburban Bus Service, 955 F.Supp. 75, 77 (N.D.Ill.1996) (citing Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422, 68 S.Ct. 131, 92 L.Ed. 44 (1947); Reich v. American Driver Service, Inc., 33 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir.1994); Marshall v. Aksland, 631 F.2d 600 (9th Cir.1980); Brennan v. Schwerman Trucking Co. of Virginia, Inc., 540 F.2d 1200 (4th Cir.1976)).”That does not mean, however, that the Secretary of Transportation has automatic jurisdiction over all drivers of an interstate carrier. Pursuant to a notice of interpretation, 46 Fed.Reg. 37,902, 37,903 (1981)… jurisdiction extends only to drivers who reasonably could be expected to make one of the carrier’s interstate runs, and that means more than a remote possibility.” Garcia, 955 F.Supp. at 77. Thus, as explained in the relevant Department of Labor regulation:
In a situation considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, approximately 4 percent of the total trips made by drivers employed by a common carrier by motor vehicle involved in the hauling of interstate freight. Since it appeared that employer, as a common carrier, was obligated to take such business, and that any driver might be called upon at any time to perform such work, which was indiscriminately distributed among the drivers, the Court considered that such trips were a natural, integral, and apparently inseparable part of the common carrier service performed by the employer and driver employees. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that such work, which directly affected the safety of operation of the vehicles in interstate commerce, brought the entire classification of drivers employed by the carrier under the power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service, so that all were exempt even though the interstate driving on particular employees was sporadic and occasional, and in practice some drivers would not be called upon for long periods to perform any such work. ( Morris v. McComb, 332 U.S. 422, 68 S.Ct. 131, 92 L.Ed. 44)
29 C.F.R. § 782.2. In other words, it does not matter whether the driver in question actually has made an interstate run; as long as the driver is subject to being assigned to such a run at any time, the exemption applies to that driver.
HWS has the burden of demonstrating that the exemption applied to Johnson during the time it employed him. Klein v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, 990 F.2d 279, 283 (7th Cir.1993). To demonstrate the application of the exemption to Johnson, HWS has submitted evidence, in the form of the affidavit of Defendant Gail Neal, the corporate secretary of HWS, which establishes the following:
1. HWS has at all relevant times held a common-carrier certificate of authority from the Department of Transportation that permits it to transport property for hire in interstate commerce.
2. Since 1973, HWS has provided its customers with both intrastate and interstate wrecker services.
3. HWS routinely provides interstate wrecker services for several of its customers.
4. All HWS drivers are subject to being assigned to an out-of-state run, either as a driver or as a helper, as needed.
5. Johnson was subject to being assigned to an out-of-state run at all times during his employment with HWS.
Thus, HWS has submitted evidence sufficient to establish that the motor carrier exemption to the FLSA was applicable to Johnson during his employment with HWS.” Therefore the Court granted Defendant’s motion.
Latest Posts
-
N.D.Miss.: Court Rejects Retaliatory Counterclaims in FLSA Case
Hale v. KTG USA, Inc. A recent decision out of the Northern District of Mississippi underscores that courts do not look favorably upon what appear…
-
D.Ct.: Approval of FLSA Settlement Denied Based on Non-Reemployment Clause
Shorter v. Greenwich Homecare LLC Each year federal courts are asked review and approve FLSA settlements in thousands of cases. In some Circuits like the…
-
E.D.Tex.: Texas Court Strikes Down DOL Overtime Rule
Texas v. United States Department of Labor Last week, in a long-awaited decision, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas struck down…
-
Fifth Circuit Strikes Down DOL’s Tip Credit Regulation
Restaurant Law Center v. Department of Labor Due to its conservative bent, the Fifth Circuit has long been a hotbed of litigation challenging regulations of…
DOL News
- US Department of Labor issues guidance on Registered Apprenticeship aimed at accelerating growth, reducing burdens, improving transparency
- US Department of Labor recovers more than $293K in back wages for 56 construction workers denied overtime by Idaho company
- Secretary Chavez-DeRemer statement on February jobs report
- Secretary Chavez-DeRemer statement on February jobs report
- Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report
- US Department of Labor cites Florida air conditioning contractor for exposing workers to struck-by hazards after worker fatality
- US Department of Labor cites Florida petroleum tank services contractor after worker succumbs to injuries from exposure to toxic chemicals
- US Department of Labor extends comment period for pharmacy benefit manager fee disclosure proposed rule
- US Department of Labor proposes rule clarifying employee, independent contractor status under federal wage and hour laws
- Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report
Overtime Law Blog 