Wage & Hour Defense Blog : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Epstein Becker Green Law Firm : DOL Enforcement, FLSA Coverage

Making FLSA collective actions go away quickly just got harder in Texas.  In a recent decision in December 2008, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (with jurisdiction over Texas) significantly limited the availability of a valuable defensive tactic regularly asserted by defendants in FLSA collective actions – the offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Procedure 68. Prior to the Court’s ruling, defendants were often able to reduce their liability under the FLSA by preemptively offering a settlement to class representatives, satisfying theirclaims in full. By doing so, the representative’s claims were deemed moot; and, the representative was unable to proceed in his or her capacity for the class of employees. This principle has been accepted by a wide spectrum of federal courts.

 However, in Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008) the Fifth Circuit determined this approach was available in only limited circumstances. The Court recognized the practice created an “incentive for employers to use Rule 68 as a sword, ‘picking off’ representative plaintiffs and avoiding ever having to face a collective action.” Further, it was acknowledged that the tactic had the potential to “frustrate” the objectives of the FLSA, while sustaining duplicative individual lawsuits under the Act. According to its ruling in Sandoz, a claim would be deemed “moot” only if the representative failed to file a timely motion to certify the class of employees; or, the motion to certify is denied.

While the ultimate consequence of Sandoz has yet been realized by employers, it is certain the offer of judgment tactic in FLSA collective actions has been dealt a serious blow in the Fifth Circuit. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite the lenient standards for conditionally certifying an FLSA collective action, a federal court in Miami recently ruled that a collective action against a local auto dealership was inappropriate.

First, some background on FLSA collective actions. The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that an action for overtime compensation “may be maintained . . . by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”  29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, has instructed district courts to follow a two-tiered procedure to determine whether plaintiffs are “similarly situated” for purposes of class certification under § 216(b).  At the initial stage, or “notice stage,” the district court’s decision is based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted. The second stage of the two-tiered procedure typically occurs at the end of discovery when the matter is ready for trial and defendant has filed a motion for decertification of the class.

In deciding whether to authorize notice at the “notice stage,” the Court should strike a balance between allowing the named plaintiffs to contact potential class members to inform them of their rights, and the prohibition against solicitation of clients and the desire to avoid frivolous claims. One district court explained the rationale for this requirement as follows:

In seeking court-authorized notice, plaintiffs are in effect asking this court to assist in their efforts to locate potential plaintiffs and thereby expand the scope of the litigation. As a matter of sound case management, a court should, before offering such assistance, make a preliminary inquiry as to whether a manageable class exists. Moreover the sending of notice and consent forms to potential plaintiffs implicates concerns in addition to orderly case management. The courts, as well as practicing attorneys, have a responsibility to avoid the “stirring up” of litigation through unwarranted solicitation.

Severetson v. Phillips Beverage Co., 137 F.R.D. 264, 266 (D. Minn. 1991).

The Eleventh Circuit has held that a district court has the authority to enter an order requiring notice to individuals who are “similarly-situated,” but “before determining to exercise such power…the district court should satisfy itself that there are other employees…who desire to ‘opt in’ and who are ‘similarly situated.’” Dybach v. State of Florida Dep’t of Corrections, 942 F.2d 1562, 1567-68 (11th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff must offer “detailed allegations supported by affidavits which successfully engage defendants’ affidavits to the contrary.” Id.  Generalized, unsupported allegations are insufficient to discharge the plaintiff’s burden. Rather, a plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating a reasonable basis for crediting her assertion that aggrieved individuals exist in the proposed class. Rodgers, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23272, at *7-8 (citing Haynes v. Singer Co., Inc., 696 F.2d 884, 887 (11th Cir. 1983)). 

Thus, plaintiff or her counsel’s mere belief in the existence of other employees who desire to opt in, and “unsupported expectations that additional plaintiffs will subsequently come forward, are insufficient to justify” certification of a collective action and notice to a potential class. Id.  Moreover, “[c]ertification of a collective action and notice to a potential class is not appropriate to determine whether there are others who desire to join the lawsuit.” Id. (citing Dybach, 942 F.2d at 1567-68). Rather, a plaintiff must show that others desire to opt in before the court can authorize notice. Id. 

When there is a lack of evidence to support a finding that other employees are interested in opting in to the litigation, a court should deny the Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification. 

That was exactly the result reached in a recent decision by United States District Court Judge Ursula Ungaro in Galban v. Bill Seidle's Nissan, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-20310-uu (S.D. Fla.)  The plaintiffs, former salesmen, alleged in their complaint that they were denied the federal minimum wage based on the dealership's "commission-only" pay plan.  They moved for conditional certification of a class, but failed to demonstrate that any other similarly situated salespeople had an interest in joining the litigation.  Absent such evidence, Judge Ungaro did not hesitate in denying the plaintiffs' motion.

The Galban decision illustrates an important principle of FLSA litigation.  A so-called "collective action" is not a collective action until the court says it is.  And although the standards for certifying a collective action at the initial, "notice" stage are lenient, there are certain minimum requirements that a plaintiff must meet.  It is defense counsel's role to hold plaintiffs to those standards and demonstrate, if possible, that a collective action is inappropriate.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Shavitz Law Group and Morgan & Morgan, two of the leading wage-hour firms in Florida, stand accused of soliciting clients in violation of state ethics rules for a case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The defendant in the case, Centex Homes, filed a Motion for Sanctions against the two firms on Friday.  

Centex's motion follows on the heels of a story I reported last month, Judge Ryskamp's order in the Hamm case granting sanctions against the Shavitz Law Group for soliciting clients by telephone in violation of Florida Bar Rules.  Centex alleges that the firms engaged in similar conduct in its case in violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Centex cites Judge Ryskamp's decision in Hamm in support of its motion. Centex also alleges that the Shavitz firm failed to disclose the sanctions order in the Hamm case as required by the local rules of court.

Stay tuned for further developments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last month I reported that United States District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp had sanctioned the Shavitz Law Group, one of the leading plaintiff-side wage-hour firms in Florida, for soliciting plaintiffs in violation of Florida Bar Rules.  The case was Hamm v. TBC Corp. and Tire Kingdom, Inc., Case No. 07-80829-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC. 

The Shavitz firm recently struck back, filing a motion to disqualify or recuse Judge Ryskamp from presiding over a different case, a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against Abercrombie & Fitch.  The motion quoted Judge Ryskamp's comments during a hearing in the Hamm case:

I have had our law clerk check and the Shavitz firm has filed 1,332 cases in the Southern District of Florida since 2000, so we see these things continually, virtually never see them go to trial, I think that I have had one trial with all the cases that have been filed.

In looking at the statistical numbers, they are usually closed within three months of the time they are filed, so what is very clear to me is that most defendants are saying how much is it going to cost me to defend this case and what is the claim and the claim is so small it would cost most to have the lawyers defend it, so they are basically nuisance type claims that get bought off, of course the lawyer’s fees are always – not always, but very often considerably more than the claim itself – and I think this is certainly an area for some Congressional oversight, I think there ought to be written into the statute a provision that a letter demand must be made upon the employer before a lawsuit can be filed because the way this thing is working is just a lawyer’s retirement bill. . . . this has gotten out of hand, I think we have more of these cases in the Southern District of Florida than there are anyplace else in the country and that’s probably because of the Shavitz law firm. . . . I think the problem needs to be resolved.

The Shavitz firm argued that these comments, and others that Judge Ryskamp has made about the Shavitz firm, demonstrate "an apparent bias or prejudice against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, such that disqualification/recusal is mandatory."

Three days later, Judge Ryskamp issued an order recusing himself from the case. 

Judge Ryskamp's recusal notwithstanding, from my perspective as a defense attorney, his comments were on the money. Many, if not most, FLSA cases are settled on a nuisance value basis.  In such cases, there is often only a few thousand dollars of overtime pay at issue.  And the employer often has solid defenses which it could prove on summary judgment or at trial.  But after some frank discussions with defense counsel, the employer concludes that it makes more sense to settle the case for, say, $10,000 than to pay its own attorneys $50,000 to $100,000 to litigate the case.  An additional factor is the uncertainty of litigation:  if the employee proves liability, even for a small amount, the employer will be on the hook for the plaintiff's attorney's fees as well.  So these cases typically settle, and Shavitz (or one of his colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar) move on to their next case.  The cycle continues, and South Florida continues to lead the nation in wage-hour lawsuits.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A report by the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, the federal agency charged with enforcing minimum wage, overtime and other labor laws, "is failing in that role, leaving millions of workers vulnerable," according to an article in today's New York Times.

One of the reports concerned the Division's office in Miami:

When an undercover agent posing as a dishwasher called four times to complain about not being paid overtime for 19 weeks, the division’s office in Miami failed to return his calls for four months, and when it did, the report said, an official told him it would take 8 to 10 months to begin investigating his case.

The report concludes that "Labor has left thousands of actual victims of wage theft who sought federal government assistance with nowhere to turn." 

Nowhere to turn? In Florida that's simply not true.  As anyone who pays attention to court filings can tell you, dozens of workers each week, many on the low end of the pay scale, file claims for overtime and minimum wage violations in Florida state and federal courts.  Indeed, as previously reported here, according to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for the past five years the Southern District of Florida alone has averaged 28.7% of all Fair Labor Standards Act cases filed in the United States.  The notion that workers have "nowhere to turn" is absurd.  They need only turn to one of Florida's many wage-hour lawyers, who have turned wage-hour litigation into a cottage industry in the sunshine state.  Does the GAO not realize that the FLSA permits private lawsuits, and in fact encourages them through its fee-shifting provisions? Why would an employee need the Wage and Hour Division when he has the Shavitz Law Firm or The Celler Legal Group in his corner? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Department of Labor's Wage & Hour Division has issued two new opinion letters addressing circumstances under which employers may not reduce the hours of exempt employees without running afoul of the "salary basis" test and risking loss of the employees' exempt status.  

First, some background.  Employees exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements as professional, executive, or administrative employees must be paid a salary of at least $455 per week. Under 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a),

[a]n employee will be considered to be paid on a "salary basis" . . . if the employee regularly receives each pay period . . . a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. . . . An employee is not paid on a salary basis if deductions from the employee’s predetermined compensation are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by the operating requirements of the business. If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.

In the first opinion letter, the employer sought to reduce the hours worked by employees using the following system:

Your client proposes occasionally reducing the hours worked by exempt employees due to short-term business needs (e.g., low patient census). In such cases, the employer offers “voluntary time off” (VTO), where employees may, at their option, use paid annual, personal, or vacation leave, but continue to accrue employment benefits. The employer approves VTO on a first-come, first-served basis. If there are insufficient volunteers for VTO, the employer requires “mandatory time off” (MTO) under a seniority-based rotational method. Exempt employees required to take MTO may use accrued paid leave or take unpaid MTO. If the employee elects not to use accrued paid leave or does not have sufficient accrued paid leave to cover the VTO or MTO, the employer deducts the amount equal to the VTO or MTO from the employee’s salary, if it is shorter than one workweek. For unpaid VTO or MTO lasting an entire workweek, the employer does not pay the salary for that pay period. Salaried exempt employees may take VTO or be assigned MTO in one-day increments.

The DOL opined that salary deductions due to MTO lasting less than a workweek violate the salary basis requirement and may cause the loss of exempt status.  "Deductions from salary due to day-to-day or week-to-week determinations of the operating requirements of the business are precisely the circumstances the salary basis requirement is intended to preclude." 

In the second opinion letter, the employer proposed requiring salaried exempt employees to stay home or leave work early during periods of insufficient work.  The employer would deduct the non-work time from the employees’ accrued paid time-off accounts. The employees would receive their regular salaries so long as they had sufficient hours in their PTO accounts to cover the non-work periods. If an employee’s accrued PTO was exhausted, the employee’s salary would be reduced in full-day increments, except that in no event would an employee’s salary be reduced below the $455 per week.

The DOL opined that this proposal would also run afoul of the salary basis test. 

If an employer requires that an exempt employee work less than a full workweek, the employer must pay the employee’s full salary even if: (1) the employer does not have a bona-fide benefits plan; (2) the employee has no accrued benefits in the leave bank; (3) the employee has limited accrued leave benefits, and reducing that accrued leave will result in a negative balance; or (4) the employee already has a negative balance in the accrued leave bank. 

The DOL also opined that if an exempt employee’s accrued PTO is exhausted and the periods of insufficient work continued, the employer would not be permitted to send the employee home and pay him a reduced salary for the week.  The DOL distinguished this situation from the scenario discussed in a 1970 opinion letter, in which the employer was considering a permanent change in the work schedule from 52 five-day workweeks to 47 five-day workweeks and 5 four-day workweeks. "In that case," the DOL noted, "the salary basis requirement was not circumvented because all the exempt employees were to be paid according to a bona fide reduction of one-fifth of their salaries for a fixed schedule of five annually recurring four-day workweeks."

The distinguishing principle was stated in a 1995 DOL opinion letter:

... a fixed reduction in salary effective during a period when a company operates a shortened workweek due to economic conditions would be a bona fide reduction not designed to circumvent the salary basis payment. Therefore, the exemption would remain in effect as long as the employee receives the minimum salary required by the regulations and meets all the other requirements for the exemption.

My takeaway from these opinion letters is this:  Employers that are considering reducing their exempt employees' hours due to insufficient work must proceed very carefully.  Reducing exempt employees' hours of work, and reducing their pay correspondingly, may be permissible if the changes are carried out in accordance with a fixed schedule over an extended period of time.  An employer may not make reductions in work hours and pay based on day-to-day or week-to-week determinations of how much work is available.  Such reductions will run afoul of the salary basis test, risk forfeiture of the employees' exempt status, and expose the employer to overtime claims from the employees when their workload increases.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The following is a reprint of a client alert authored by EBG attorneys Doug Weiner and Frank Morris, Jr.  It should be of interest to all Florida employers that are considering a reduction in force.

For many employers, these are desperate economic times. Every entity facing diminished revenue must consider cost cuts to survive. As news reports show, reductions in force (RIFs) are being used daily to achieve cost savings, and for some employers they may be the best solution. In some cases, however, the savings are not immediate as a result of statutorily required or voluntary notice periods, as well as costs of severance pay.

A different approach may be a furlough strategy, customized to fit each employer’s needs, which may also achieve a significant cost-savings benefit. Implementing a furlough can help retain the employer’s experienced workforce at a reduced cost, to help the enterprise weather the economic crisis. Most employees faced with, for example, the choice of a 20 percent annual pay reduction or the loss of their job would not hesitate to choose a reduction in pay. Further, both employers and employees taking advantage of a furlough program are well-positioned to take advantage of any increase in business activity in the inevitable economic recovery, whether it be this year or next. Furloughs are often viewed by the workforce more favorably than layoffs, thus preserving morale in the organization as well.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires hourly and non-exempt salaried employees to be paid time-and-one-half their regular rate for weekly hours worked over forty. Accordingly, the first place to look for cuts in employee payroll costs is in non-exempt employee overtime pay. The FLSA was designed to give employers an incentive to spread employment from employees who work over forty weekly hours to other workers who are working fewer hours. In an environment where costs are critical, it is generally an inefficient use of payroll dollars to pay the additional wage premium required for overtime work.

Eliminating non-exempt overtime work is only the first step in reducing payroll costs among hourly non-exempt employees, salaried non-exempt employees and salaried exempt employees. Take an example in which it has been decided that in a department of 100 employees, where all three categories of employees work, that payroll expenses must be cut by 20 percent. One possibility is to reduce the department headcount by 20 percent, eliminating 20 jobs and the costs associated with them. Another possibility is to implement a mandatory furlough period with 20 percent pay cuts for all 100 employees. The furlough strategy takes more administrative time to manage properly, but it potentially saves 20 jobs while achieving the necessary cost-saving objective.

The FLSA allows employers to implement a variety of options to impose salary reductions and pay cuts, as do most state laws. A salary may be prospectively reduced without violating the “salary-basis” test of the FLSA for exempt employees, including a reduction in pay proportionate to a reduction in the number of days worked. Managers may implement furloughs and RIFs simultaneously or in a phased sequence. As with all such strategies, any applicable state and local requirements need to be determined, as federal law will defer to a state or local standard that provides a greater protection to the employee. California, as shown by the state’s decision to furlough state employees, allows furloughs to be implemented in accord with particular wage-hour requirements that must be considered.

The FLSA permits prospective adjustments to an exempt employee’s salary, including revisions to commission agreements or bonus compensation plans based on the quantity or quality of work, which do not reduce the “predetermined amount” of the employee’s salary (of course, the terms of the plans also need to be checked before changes are made). In concept, if the duties test for exemption is satisfied, the predetermined salary of, e.g., an exempt Sales Manager, could be as low as $455 per week, while the compensation the employee actually receives could be substantially higher (based upon commissions for meeting sales goals or bonuses for meeting other performance criteria). To preserve the salary basis of the exempt employee, the predetermined amount of salary would have to be paid for workweeks in which there were no commissions, or for which no bonus payments were made.

Careful strategic planning is required before implementing a furlough. Considerations include:

• Exempt salaried employees may have their salaries prospectively reduced to a lower predetermined amount so long as they stay above $455 per week. Salary adjustments may not be designed to circumvent the requirements of the FLSA.

• Hourly workers must be paid for every hour they are directed or permitted to work. Permitting “extra” work as, for example, spending more than de minimus time checking a Blackberry®, even when unauthorized, may well give rise to the obligation to pay for the time. Accordingly, managers must take the necessary steps to ensure the furlough plan realizes the necessary cost savings.

• It is a good practice to give employees clear notice specifying that no “volunteer work” is permissible and no work is to be performed unless specifically authorized by a predetermined schedule or authorization by an appropriate manager. Implementing a strict policy of prohibiting unscheduled work and having an administrative procedure to uniformly enforce the policy is well advised.

• Managers may consider asking hourly and salaried non-exempt employees for the return of employer-owned remote access devices during a furlough. Employees who access their work email accounts while on their “time off” may be working, or may start working. If they are working, even though advised not to do so, the employer may well incur wage liability, defeating the purpose of the furlough. Unauthorized work by non-exempt employees in violation of the employer’s furlough policy may generate exposure to significant wage claims. Violations of the furlough policy should be considered a serious disciplinary issue, warranting sanctions, including suspension and discharge. Withholding pay for hours actually worked, however, is not a legal option, even when the hours worked were not authorized.

• Salaries for exempt and non-exempt employees may be prospectively reduced so long as those adjustments are not so frequent as to appear designed to circumvent the requirements of the FLSA. Quarterly adjustments have been found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be in compliance with the FLSA. Adjustments to the predetermined amounts of salary should be implemented as infrequently as feasible so as not to raise an argument that the adjustments are a pretext to avoid compliance with the FLSA.

In sum, properly implemented salary reductions should comply with the salary requirements of the FLSA. Although it requires strategic planning and careful implementation, employers may find many benefits by implementing an effective cost-savings furlough plan that saves money and jobs, versus the RIFs dominating the news.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Shavitz Law Group, one of the leading plaintiff-side FLSA firms in Florida, was sanctioned recently by U.S. District Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp for soliciting plaintiffs in violation of Florida Bar rules.  The case is Hamm v. TBC Corp. and Tire Kingdom, Inc., Case No. 07-80829-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC.  The details of the case are laid out in a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Ann E. Vitunac. 

In his Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation, Judge Ryskamp made some telling remarks about the the nature of FLSA litigation in the Southern District of Florida:

This Court would also note that, according to the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, for the past five years the Southern District of Florida has averaged 28.7% of all FLSA cases filed in the United States. This would cause one to wonder if the employers in the Southern District are willfully ignoring the FLSA. The more logical conclusion is that FLSA cases are heavily weighted in favor of the plaintiff. Most cases are filed against small businesses which quickly realize that it is cheaper to pay a small claim and the plaintiff’s attorney’s fee than it is to defend the claims. Very few FLSA cases go to trial. It is clear that the volume of cases in the Southern District is attorney-driven.

Attorney-driven or not, the flood in FLSA litigation continues.  I suspect that the Hamm decision will do little to stem the tide.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal court in the Southern District of Florida has rejected the "ultimate consumer" defense to enterprise coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case is Exime v. E.W. Ventures, Inc., Case No. 08-60099-CIV-SEITZ/O'SULLIVAN (S.D. Fla., December 23, 2008). 

First, some background: To establish coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she was “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce”  [individual coverage]; or (2) that she was employed in an enterprise “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” [enterprise coverage].  See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

With respect to FLSA enterprise coverage, the relevant provisions are set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A) and 29 C.F.R. § 779.238:

“Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” means an enterprise that --

[H]as employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person; and

[I]s an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000. . .

29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i)-(ii).

. . . An enterprise described in [29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)] will be considered to have employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. . .if during the annual period which it uses in calculating its annual sales for purposes of the other conditions of these sections, it regularly and recurrently has at least two or more employees engaged in such activities. On the other hand, it is plain that an enterprise that has employees engaged in such activities only in isolated or sporadic occasions, will not meet this condition.

29 C.F.R. § 779.238.

Based on these rules, courts have adopted a two-prong test for enterprise coverage: (1) the enterprise commerce requirement; and (2) the gross sales requirement. Both prongs must be met in order to establish FLSA enterprise coverage.

The "Ultimate Consumer" Defense

The "ultimate consumer" defense asserts that employees' handling of interstate goods or materials cannot be used to establish FLSA enterprise coverage  if the employer is the ultimate consumer of those goods or materials. The defense is derived from 29 U.S.C. § 203(i) and § 203(s)(1)(A)(i), which state as follows:

“Enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” means an enterprise that. . .has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or that has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person;

29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A)(i).

“Goods” means goods (including ships and marine equipment), wares, products, commodities, merchandise, or articles or subjects of commerce of any character, or any part or ingredient thereof, but does not include goods after their delivery into the actual physical possession of the ultimate consumer thereof other than a producer, manufacturer, or processor thereof.

29 U.S.C. § 203(i) (emphasis added).

Judge Rejects "Ultimate Consumer" Defense

In Exime, the employer was a dry cleaning business.  The vast majority of the employer's equipment (dry cleaning machines, pressing machines, boilers, and vans) was manufactured outside Florida.   The chemicals that the employees used were purchased mostly from local retailers.  And the employer served only Florida customers.

Under these facts, the employer argued that to the extent employees handled interstate goods and materials, the employer was the ultimate consumer of those goods and materials, and therefore the employees' handling of such goods and materials could not be used to establish enterprise coverage.

Judge Patricia Seitz rejected this argument, stating in part as follows:

Defendants' argument.... ultimately turns on the assumption that the terms “goods” and “materials” share the same statutory definition. But, in order to accept Defendants' narrow interpretation, it would be necessary to wholly ignore the 1974 amendment to § 203(s)(1)(A)(i), as well as the accompanying Senate Report. That Report provides:

The bill also adds the words “or materials” after the word “goods” [in § 203(s)(1)(A)(i)] to make clear the Congressional intent to include within this additional basis of coverage the handling of goods consumed in the employer's business, as, e.g., the soap used by a laundry. . .S.Rep. No. 93-690, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. at 17 (1974) (emphasis added).

Significantly, the specific example cited in the 1974 Senate Report, “e.g., the soap used by a laundry,” demonstrates a clear Congressional intent to expand enterprise jurisdiction to companies whose employees handle interstate materials used in the employer's own business, regardless of whether that employer is the ultimate consumer of those materials. In other words, the additional term “materials” broadens FLSA jurisdiction by substantially constricting the “ultimate consumer” defense now asserted by Defendants....

The "ultimate consumer" defense, read broadly, is a potentially powerful weapon for employers in defense of an FLSA lawsuit. There are many small businesses, such as dry cleaners, that are the ultimate consumers of interstate materials, but who serve only local customers and do not otherwise handle, sell or work on goods in interstate commerce. But under Judge Seitz's narrow reading of the defense, businesses that do not handle, sell or work on interstate goods, but use interstate materials in their operations, are nevertheless covered under the FLSA. It is the rare business indeed that uses only intrastate materials in its operations. Thus, under Judge Seitz's interpretation, the "ultimate consumer" defense is effectively dead.

Is Exime the last word on the "ultimate consumer" defense? Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an important decision that explains the distinction between promoting and making sales, the Eleventh Circuit held recently that a marketing executive was exempt from the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as an outside salesperson. The case is Gregory v. First Title of America, Inc., Case No. 08-10737 (11th Cir., January 27, 2009).

Before addressing the facts of the case and the Eleventh Circuit’s holding, let’s review the applicable statute and regulations. The FLSA includes several exemptions from its minimum wage and overtime requirements, including any employee employed in the capacity of an outside salesperson, as defined by the Secretary of Labor. See 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).

The Department of Labor defines “outside sales employee” as any employee whose primary duty is (i) making sales within the meaning of section 3(k) of the Act, or (ii) obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer; and (2) Who is customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business in performing such primary duty. 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a).

29 C.F.R. section 541.501 defines “making sales or obtaining orders” as follows:

(b) Sales within the meaning of section 3(k) of the Act include the
transfer of title to tangible property, and in certain cases, of tangible
and valuable evidences of intangible property. Section 3(k) of the Act
states that ‘sale’ or ‘sell’ includes any sale, exchange, contract to sell,
consignment for sale, shipment for sale, or other disposition.

(c) Exempt outside sales work includes not only the sales of
commodities, but also ‘obtaining orders or contracts for services or for
the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client
or customer.’ Obtaining orders for ‘the use of facilities’ includes the
selling of time on radio or television, the solicitation of advertising for
newspapers and other periodicals, and the solicitation of freight for
railroads and other transportation agencies.

(d) The word ‘services’ extends the outside sales exemption to
employees who sell or take orders for a service, which may be
performed for the customer by someone other than the person taking
the order.

Promotional work is addressed in 29 C.F.R. § 541.503. Promotional work may or may not be exempt outside sales work, depending on the circumstances under which it is performed. “Promotional work that is actually performed incidental to and in conjunction with an employee’s own outside sales or solicitations is exempt work” whereas “promotional work that is incidental to sales made, or to be made, by someone else is not exempt outside sales work.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.503(a).

Now for the facts and the Eleventh Circuit’s holding. First Title of America, Inc. (“First Title”) is a title marketing company based in Lake Mary, Florida. The plaintiff, Nelda Gregory, was a “marketing executive” for First Title who was hired due, in large part, to her prior experience in selling insurance. According to the Employment Agreement executed between the parties, her job description was to “provide the services for referring and closing title insurance companies.”

Under the terms of the Employment Agreement, Gregory initially was paid $1000 per week. At Gregory’s suggestion, she later began to be paid on a commission basis and received a fifty percent commission on all orders for title insurance from her clients that closed with First Title. Gregory claimed that although she often worked more than forty hours per week, she was never compensated for her overtime.

Gregory argued that she did not fall within the FLSA’s outside sales exemption because she was employed by First Title as a marketing representative and she never actually consummated a sale during her employment. Gregory contended that she was tasked only with inducing realtors, brokers and lenders to begin referring their customers – the end user – on to First Title for title insurance services. She maintained that she never directly sold title insurance or title insurance services to anyone because she was not licensed to do so. In short, Gregory asserted that she was employed only to promote First Title’s services and to stimulate sales and was never involved in the actual sale of title insurance to the realtors, brokers and lenders, or to the end users.

First Title argued that Gregory’s primary duty was bringing in or obtaining orders for First Title and that her compensation was tied directly to orders for title services that ultimately closed. First Title cited to language from the Preamble to 29 C.F.R. Part 541 discussing recent modifications to § 541.403 (Promotion Work), in which the DOL remarked that:

[T]he Department agrees that technological changes in how orders are taken and processed should not preclude the exemption for employees who in some sense make the sales. Employees have a primary duty of making sales if they ‘obtain a commitment to buy’ from the customer and are credited with the sale.. . . . Exempt status should not depend on whether it is the sales employee or the customer who types the order into a computer system and hits the return button. The changes to proposed section 541.503(c) are intended to avoid such a result.

Thus, First Title argued that that how the order is placed is immaterial – the inquiry should focus on the efforts of the salesperson. If those efforts were directed toward the consummation of her own sales as opposed to stimulating the sales of the company in general, then the employee is exempt.

Agreeing with First Title, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Gregory’s primary duty was to obtain orders for First Title’s title insurance services, i.e., bring in orders. The court noted that the bulk of Gregory’s time was spent away from the office, free from direct supervision and performing work that could not be conclusively characterized as nonexempt.

Addressing Gregory’s argument that her work was “stimulating sales” as opposed to “obtaining orders for services,” the court concluded that “Gregory did, indeed, make a sale in some sense.”

She obtained commitments to buy orders for First Title’s title insurance service and, most importantly, was credited with the sale. She was hired for her prior sales experience and brought a book of clients with her to First Title. Not long after being hired, Gregory’s sole source of income was directly tied to the number of orders that she brought in. She listed her clients for the Appellees and received credit (and payment) only for those orders placed by her clients that closed. All of her efforts were directed towards the consummation of her own sales and not towards stimulating sales for First Title in general.

The court also noted that Gregory did not merely “pave the way” for other salespeople. “Gregory did not collect orders and turn them over to another salesperson nor does the record contain evidence of any other intervening sales effort between Gregory and orders placed with First Title[,]” the court noted. “As opposed to conceiving of Gregory as “paving the way” for others to consummate the sale, we view her as acting more as a conduit through which orders for services flowed. Gregory received credit and payment for those orders that flowed through her to First Title.”

The Gregory decision is significant, as there are undoubtedly thousands of sales and marketing employees within the Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia and Alabama) who “obtain a commitment to buy” from the customer and are credited with the sale, but who do not actually place the order for the sale. Gregory makes clear that such facts do not necessarily preclude the application of the outside sales exemption.

A caveat: Employers should keep in mind that courts generally construe exemptions to the FLSA narrowly. Before classifying any employee as exempt under one of the “white collar” exemptions, careful attention must be paid to the employee’s actual job duties and the tests set forth by the DOL.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link