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

By Betsy Johnson

A client recently asked us to provide them with a summary of the California rules paying non-exempt employees for “on-call” time. Our client requires non-exempt maintenance employees to carry cell phones and/or pagers after hours and on weekends so they can respond to requests for assistance and emergencies at the facility which operates on a 24/7 basis. The employees are required to respond to a call or page within 10-15 minutes and to be available to go to the facility immediately if necessary. The questions presented were: 1) whether these employees should be paid for the time spent carrying the cell phone or pager and 2) is there a minimum amount of pay the employees must receive if they are required to report to the facility. We thought that it would be helpful to share our thoughts here. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the federal regulations provide that “[a]s a general rule the term ‘hours worked’ will include: (a) All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be on the employer’s premises or at a prescribed workplace and (b) all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work whether or not he is required to do so.” (29 CFR §778.223).

There is a substantial difference between the definition of "hours worked" adopted by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) and that used by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) under the FLSA. Under California law, it is generally only necessary that the worker be subject to the "control of the employer" or "all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work" in order to be entitled to pay.   These two phrases operate independently of each other, so that if time falls into either category, it must be counted as hours worked.  

See IWC Wage Orders, Section 2(K), Morillion v. Royal Packing Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 575, 584 [citing to DLSE Opinion Letter (“O.L.”) 1993.03.31]. Please note, that there is a different definition for employees in the Health Care Industry and for employees who are required to reside on the employer’s premises. 

Standby Or Waiting Time.  Under both federal and state law, an employee who is required to remain on the employer’s place of business and respond to emergency calls is working and must be paid for all hours – even if the employee is doing nothing more than waiting for something to happen.  See Armour & Co. v. Wantock, 323 U.S. 126 (1944). However, the standby time can be paid at a different hourly rate from the regular rate paid for working time, provided that the standby rate is set before the work is performed and the standby rate is at least minimum wage ($8.00 per hour). See O.L. 2002.02.21.  For purposes of overtime computation, where two or more rates are used, California requires that the “weighted average” method for overtime calculation be utilized to determine the regular rate of pay.

Uncontrolled Standby. An employee who must be available to respond to a request by the employer to return to work for an emergency may be on uncontrolled standby if the employee is completely unrestricted to use his or her time for their own purposes. Such "free" standby time is not under the control of the employer and, thus, need not be paid.

Controlled Standby. If the employee's time is so restricted that she cannot pursue personal activities and come and go as she pleases, the employer is considered to have direction and control of the employee. The DLSE has adopted the test which the California Supreme Court announced in the case of Madera Police Officers Assn. v. City of Madera (1984) 36 Cal.3d 403, and will apply that test to determine the extent of control.

The Madera court applied a two-part preliminary analysis to determine whether the time was compensable. The first part of the test measures whether the restrictions placed on the employee are primarily directed toward the fulfillment of the employer's requirements and policies. Second, is the employee substantially restricted so as to be unable to attend to private pursuits? 

Regarding the second prong of the test, the Madera court also indicated that the trier of fact must examine the restrictions cumulatively to assess their overall effect on the worker's uncompensated time. In other words, the net impact of the restrictions must be considered. Note that the court did not hold that no restrictions as to time and space could be placed on the employee; only that the restrictions could not be substantial enough to prevent the employee from attending to private pursuits. 

The factors to be considered in determining whether an employee is on controlled standby are similar to the federal guidelines and include:

(1) whether there are excessive geographical restrictions on employees' movements; (2) whether the frequency of calls is unduly restrictive; (3) whether a required response time is unduly restrictive; (4) whether the on-call employee can easily trade his on-call responsibilities with another employee, and (6) the extent of personal activities engage d in during o n-call time. (O.L . 1998.12.28)

The simple requirement that the employee wear a cell phone, pager or beeper, standing alone, does not require that the employee be paid for all the hours the device is on. Additionally, the DLSE does not take the position that simply requiring the employee to respond to call backs is so inherently intrusive as to require a finding that the employee is under the control of the employer. Such factors as (1) geographical restrictions on employee's movements; (2) required response time; (3) the nature of the employment; and, (4) the extent the employer's policy would impact on personal activities during on-call time, must all be considered.

The bottom-line consideration is the amount of "control" exercised by the employer over the activities of the employee. In some cases, the employer can be said to be exercising some control over his employee at all times. For instance, the "duty of loyalty" found in Labor Code §2863 requires that employees give   preference to the business of his employer over any personal business of the employee. However, such attenuated "control" does not give rise to an obligation to pay the employee. However, once the employer exercises immediate control over the employee's activities, the employee must be compensated for this time. (O.L. 1993.03.31, 1992.01.28)

Response and Reporting Time Pay.  If the employee is required to respond to a call or page, all time spent by the employee answering questions or otherwise responding via phone and/or computer is compensable time and must be paid. Employees must keep accurate records of these hours worked. Under California law, only de minimus work (defined as a “minute or two” during the entire workday-not per response) does not have to be paid.

If the employee is required to report to the employer’s facility, the provisions of California’s “reporting time” rules may apply. Section 5 of each IWC Wage Order provides:

(A) Each workday an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee's usual or scheduled day's work, the employee shall be paid for half the usual or scheduled day's work, but in no event for less than two (2) hours nor more than four (4) hours, at the employee's regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

(B) If an employee is required to report for work a second time on any one workday and is furnished less than two (2) hours of work on the second reporting, said employee shall be paid for two (2) hours at the employee's regular rate of pay, which shall not be less than the minimum wage.

(C) The foregoing reporting time pay provisions are not applicable when:

(1) Operations cannot commence or continue due to threats to employees or property; or when recommended by civil authorities; or

(2) Public utilities fail to supply electricity, water, or gas, or there is a failure in the public utilities, or sewer system; or

(3) The interruption of work is caused by an Act of God or other cause not within the employer's control

(D) This section shall not apply to an employee on paid standby who is called to perform assigned work at a time other than the employee's scheduled reporting time.

If the employee is on a paid standby and is called to work, the reporting time pay provisions do not apply. In order to qualify as paid standby, the hourly wage for the standby time which has been agreed to or, absent a specific agreement, at the employee's regular rate of pay must be paid.   If the employee is on unpaid standby and is called to work, the reporting time requirements kick in and a minimum of 2 hours of pay is required.

Employers who employ non-exempt employees in California are cautioned to review their pay practices as they relate to “on-call” time for their California employees.

By Douglas Weiner and Brian Molinari

In the current economic downturn, competition for desirable positions of employment is keen. Ambitious job seekers may approach an employer asking for an unpaid position to gain experience, skills and contacts. While such a relationship may prove mutually advantageous, employers should remember that the DOL recently emphasized the FLSA’s compensation requirements apply to employees who are required or allowed to work. The terms “to suffer or permit to work” have been construed expansively in order to effectuate the broad remedial purposes of the Act.

Volunteering Does Not Mean Waiving

It has been determined that employees subject to the Act may not choose to “decline” the protections of the Act by performing activities characterized as “volunteer” services. Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 302 (1985). In that case, the Supreme Court was concerned that unless employees were barred on a general basis from “volunteering” to perform any services for their employers there would be potential for the coercion of uncompensated services, to the detriment of the purposes of the Act. The Court did not wish to allow the prohibition against employees waiving their protections under the Act to be circumvented by characterizing work as “volunteer” services, citing Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) and Brooklyn Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697 (1945). Accordingly, covered and non-exempt individuals who are “suffered or permitted” to work must be compensated under the law for the services they perform for an employer. Thus, internships in the “for-profit” private sector will most often be viewed as employment, unless the test described below relating to trainees is met.

Fact Sheet #71: The Test For Unpaid Interns

Individuals who participate in “for-profit” private sector internships or training programs may do so without compensation, according to DOL, only under certain circumstances. Whether an internship or training program meets this exclusion depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each such program.

The following six criteria must be applied when making this determination:

1.                  The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;

2.                  The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;

3.                  The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;

4.                  The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;

5.                  The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and

6.                  The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If all of the factors listed above are met, an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the Act’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the intern. 

Accordingly, employers must tread carefully when entertaining what is certain to be many offers from job seekers to work as an unpaid intern. Unless all 6 factors above support an unpaid internship, individuals working for “for-profit” employers typically must be paid at least the minimum wage and overtime compensation for hours worked over forty in a workweek.

By Allen B. Roberts and Douglas Weiner 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Act"), significantly impacting the delivery of health care, also amends the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The FLSA amendments impose certain employer responsibilities in providing health care benefits, confer whistleblower protections and authorize the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") to undertake increased enforcement related to health care. Employers have new requirements to learn, and to implement, under the FLSA, irrespective of their size or the number of employees in their workforce.

The most significant features of these amendments to the FLSA are summarized below.
 

Automatic Enrollment in Health Plans for Employers with at Least 200 Employees

• Under the Act, a new Section 18A is added to the FLSA that requires employers with 200 or more full-time employees to automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of the health plans offered by the employer and to continue the enrollment of current employees in the health plans offered. Under the automatic enrollment requirements, automatically enrolled employees must be given adequate notice and an opportunity to opt-out of the health plan. Any applicable state laws regarding payroll, such as permissible deductions of wages, will continue to be in effect except to the extent the state laws prohibit employers from implementing automatic enrollment.
• This provision is effective upon the promulgation of regulations by the DOL. It is unclear when the DOL will issue regulations implementing this requirement, and officials at the DOL have confirmed that they have yet to issue official guidance on any of the amendments to the FLSA.

Required Health Care Notice to Employees

• The Act adds a new Section 18B to the FLSA that requires employers to provide a detailed notice to employees of significant provisions of the Act regarding the American Health Insurance Exchange (“Exchange”). The Act requires each state to establish an Exchange by January 1, 2014, through which individuals (and small businesses) may purchase insurance coverage under qualified health plans that provide certain standards of health benefit coverage. For more information regarding the Exchange and its impact on employers, please see our Client Alert of April 8, 2010, entitled “Health Care Reform: What Employers Need to Know.” The notice must inform each employee at the time of hire of the existence of the Exchange, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit if the employer’s share of the total cost of benefits is less than 60 percent of such costs and that, if the employee purchases a policy through the Exchange, the employee may lose the employer contribution to any health benefits offered by the employer (except as otherwise required by a “free choice voucher”). 
• This provision is effective for employers beginning March 1, 2013, and the notice must be provided to current employees no later than March 1, 2013. 

Non-Discrimination and Whistleblower Protections

• A new Section 18C, “Protections For Employees,” is added to the FLSA, prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against any employee because the employee: 
• received a premium tax credit or subsidy for a health plan;
• provided information to the employer or the federal or state government concerning a violation, act or omission the employee reasonably believes to be a violation relating to Title I of the Act. (Title I of the Act, among other things, provides rules for the establishment and operation of the Exchange and imposes certain mandates on employers, including the provision of certain standards of benefits for health coverage, the automatic enrollment requirements described above and the elimination of certain restrictions in health coverage, such as pre-existing condition exclusions and lifetime and annual dollar limitations in coverage);
• testified or is about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violation;
• assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate, in such a proceeding; or
• objected to, or refused to perform, any activity or assigned task the employee reasonably believes to be such a violation.
   
• The new employee protections under the Act are significant in that they provide employees with the authority to challenge actions of employers in implementing the requirements of Title I of the Act.
• Enforcement of these protections incorporates the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies and statute of limitations set forth in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (“CPSIA”), 15 U.S.C. 2087(b). The DOL is likely to assign complaints under this section to the whistleblower investigations unit within OSHA, as are 17 other statutes, including CPSIA. Finally, these protections do not diminish any other rights under federal or state law or under a collective bargaining agreement and are not waivable.
• This provision is effective immediately.

Nursing Mothers 

• A new paragraph (r) is added to Section 7 of the FLSA that requires employers to provide unpaid, reasonable break time for nursing mothers to express breast milk, as such employee has need to express the milk, for one year after the child’s birth and a place to express the milk “other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion.” An employer with less than 50 employees will not be required to implement this provision if doing so would cause the employer an “undue hardship.”
• This provision is effective immediately.

On April 1, 2010, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced a new campaign entitled "We Can Help," aimed at assisting low income workers in reporting wage and hour violations to the Department of Labor.    The campaign consists of a new website and 1-800 number, combined with bilingual public service announcements by celebrities such as Esai Morales and Jimmy Smits.

The campaign is primarily targeted at employees in the construction, food service, janitorial, hospitality and health care fields.  Employers in these targeted industries should be congnizant of these stepped up enforcement efforts and conduct regular audits to ensure compliance.

For more information, please see the Client Alert prepared by Michael Kun, Jay Krupin, Kara Maciel and Allen Roberts.