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

By: Dean Silverberg, Evan Spelfogel, Peter Panken, Douglas Weiner and Donald Krueger

Reversing its prior stance, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposes to extend the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) to domestic workers who provide in-home care services to the elderly and infirm. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend the Companionship and Live-In Worker Regulations. In 1974, when domestic service workers were first included in FLSA coverage, the DOL published regulations that provided an exemption for such “companions”, whether employed directly by the families of the elderly and infirm, or by a third party employer/staffing agency. Now, heeding calls from organized labor and certain members of Congress, the DOL is moving to close this “loophole.” See“Is the Department of Labor Considering a Revision to the Domestic Service Exemption for Home Health Care Aides?” .

Specifically, the proposed rule would eliminate the exemption for third-party employers, like service staffing agencies, even if the employee is jointly employed by the staffing agency and the family. The new proposal if implemented, would likely drive up costs for families who wish to care for their elderly and infirm at home.

The change would be particularly onerous for Home Health Agencies if it is deemed to be merely a correction of a “misinterpretation” and given retroactive effect. This could lead to claims of past liability for extra overtime compensation for Home Health Agencies that had relied on the Department of Labor’s prior interpretation. The DOL’s prior interpretation, exempting third party employers and staffing agencies from FLSA overtime requirements had been upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Coke case.

The change in the federal DOL’s interpretation could also affect State Wage Hour Regulations (like New York). These provide favorable treatment for employers of employees who are exempt under the FLSA.

The public has been invited to comment on the proposed new rule. Potentially adversely affected employers may use the public comment period to point out the impropriety of the proposed change after thirty five years of consistent industry wide application of the current rule. Employers might also point out that an unintended effect of the changed rule may be to force the care of the elderly and infirm from their homes to an institutional setting, such as a nursing home or assisted care facility.

By:  Peter M. Panken, Michael S. Kun, Douglas Weiner and Larissa Lalor-Rosado

Misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime compensation has become a cottage industry for plaintiff’s lawyers and for the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) in the Obama years.  One of the most difficult issues is whether employees meet the so-called administrative exemption to the Wage Hour laws.  In Hines v. State Room, the United States Circuit Court in New England offered some clarity and help to beleaguered employers holding that former banquet sales managers were exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The FLSA, requires overtime pay at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a seven day period unless the employee is exempt. The three pronged test for exemption for administrative employees is whether the employee is (1) salaried (paid a regular amount of at least $455 for all hours worked in a workweek); (2) the employee’s primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and (3) the employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

Plaintiffs were banquet sales managers whose job included seeking potential customers for events at the employer, developing the elements of the party or other event and submitting the proposed contract terms for approval by senior officials of the Banquet Halls.

The Court found that Plaintiffs met the first two prongs for exemption: Plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis, and their work was primarily administrative because it was ancillary to the employer’s actual business of providing banquet services.

Plaintiffs claimed that they did not meet the third prong for exemption because they lacked the authority to make any decisions of financial consequence, supervisory authority or policy-making authority.

The Court found that while the plaintiffs’ discretion in matters having significant financial impact was subject to managerial approval, such restrictions did not detract from the judgment exercised in developing a proposal for the client. Plaintiffs’ duties included maintaining primary contact with a client, tailoring an event to their needs, and overseeing the event through to execution. The Court ruled that plaintiffs exercised adequate discretion as sales people to be designated as exempt.

Other Factors Considered for Exemption

The preamble to the current DOL regulations identifies a host of factors that courts have found sufficient to demonstrate that employees exercise independent judgment. 69 Fed. Reg. at 22144. Such factors include:

·                     the ability to exercise discretion and independent judgment,

·                     freedom from direct supervision,

·                     personnel responsibilities,

·                     trouble-shooting or problem-solving activities on behalf of management,

·                     use of personalized communication techniques,

·                     authority to handle atypical or unusual situations,

·                     responsibility for assessing customer needs, primary contact to public or customers on behalf of the employer, the duty to anticipate competitive products or services and distinguish them from competitor’s products or services,

·                     advertising or promotion work, and coordination of departments, requirements or other activities for or on behalf of employer or employer’s clients or customers.

Unfortunately these factors are very fact intensive and do not provide a bright line test for exemption, But the Hines case does offer some useful precedent and guidance for employers. In any event, care must be taken to be sure that the law in a particular state or in a particular circuit does not impose a stricter limitation on the discretion and independent judgment issue.

Take-Away

An employer may retain the right to review an employee’s ability to create financial and contractual obligations and still properly classify the employee as exempt. Requiring managerial approval for these purposes does not necessarily detract from the judgment exercised by the employee at arriving at the proposal in the first place. In addition, as set forth above, there are numerous other factors that courts can consider in determining whether an employee should be designated as exempt.

By:      David Garland and Douglas Weiner

In February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gave a resounding victory to employers in the pharmaceutical industry by finding that pharmaceutical sales representatives are covered by the outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, No. 10-15257 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2011). Plaintiffs, and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) in an amicus brief, had argued the exemption did not apply because sales reps are prohibited from making the final sale. Prescription medicine in the heavily regulated pharmaceutical industry can only be sold to the ultimate consumer with the authorization of a licensed physician. Sales reps use their “selling skills” to persuade doctors to prescribe their employer’s products when the doctor’s patients have a medical need for them. Sales reps do not transfer title to the medicine themselves.

Previously the Second Circuit, in In Re Novartis, took a contrary view and adopted the Secretary of Labor’s position that the outside sales exemption did not apply to pharmaceutical sales representatives specifically because they were prohibited by regulation from making direct sales. The Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ and DOL’s “rigid, formalistic interpretation” of the FLSA’s definition of “sale,” which provides that “Sale” … includes any “sale … or other disposition.” 29 U.S.C. 203(k). Because of the uncertainty in this unsettled area of law, both the employee plaintiffs and the employer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Pertinent to the aggressive approach the DOL has recently taken in submitting unsolicited amicus briefs in significant cases, another issue the Supreme Court may review is the degree of deference, if any, the court owes to an amicus brief submitted by the DOL. Again in stark contrast, the Second Circuit gave the DOL’s amicus brief “controlling deference” to interpret the DOL’s own regulations while the Ninth Circuit gave the DOL’s amicus brief “no deference” finding it was a departure from established industry norm that the DOL used to short-cut the public notice – and – comment rule making procedures.       

It would be a most welcome development for the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit and resolve this dramatic split in the circuit courts. However, even if the Second Circuit’s view of the “outside salesman” exemption is upheld, there are circumstances when sales reps may be exempt by virtue of the administrative exemption. Employers need clarity to structure employment practices without the ever-present threat of class action litigation.

By Douglas Weiner and Meg Thering

On October 20, 2011, the Computer Professionals Update Act (“the CPU Act”) – one of the first potential pieces of good news for employers this year – was introduced in the U.S. Senate.  If passed, the CPU act would expand the computer employee exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).  S. 1747. 

Unlike much of the other legislation affecting employers that has been proposed or passed this year, the CPU Act would make business easier for employers and decrease the risk of employee misclassification lawsuits.  If the proposed legislation passes, employers would be able to classify more employees as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA.  This would be a welcome change from the persistent drum beat of enhanced enforcement initiatives announced by government agencies and upticks in class and collective actions this year.

The computer employee exemption currently is limited to employees who earn at least $27.63 an hour and work as computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, or other similar positions.  Employees are exempt if their primary duties consist of: (1) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; (2) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; (3) the design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or (4) a combination of such duties.  29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17); 541 C.F.R. § 400; U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet #17E.  In contrast, employees whose work consists of repairing or manufacturing computer equipment are not exempt. 541 C.F.R. § 401; U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet #17E.

The CPU Act would broaden the exemption to include any employee who works in a “computer or information technology occupation (including but not limited to, work related to computers, information systems, components, networks, software, hardware, databases, security, internet, intranet, or websites) as an analyst, programmer, engineer, designer, developer, administrator, or other similarly skilled worker.”  The primary duties for the exemption to apply would also be broader under the CPU Act, which would consider employees exempt if their primary duties are: (1) “the application of systems, network or database analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine or modify hardware, software, network, database, or system functional specifications;” or (2) “the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications.”  Employees who perform a combination of these duties would still be considered exempt.  Also, employees who are “directing the work of individuals performing duties described [above], including training such individuals or leading teams performing such duties” would be considered exempt.  S. 1747. 

by Dean L. Silverberg, Jeffrey M. Landes, Susan Gross Sholinsky, and Jennifer A. Goldman

On September 21, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") announced a new program that will give businesses the opportunity to resolve prior worker classification issues by voluntarily reclassifying their non-employee workers (such as consultants, freelancers, and independent contractors) as employees for federal employment tax purposes. Officially called the "Voluntary Classification Settlement Program" ("VCSP"), this program is part of a larger "Fresh Start" initiative at the IRS to aid taxpayers and businesses in addressing their federal tax liabilities.

Read the full advisory online

By Kara M. Maciel

As Hurricane Irene is moving up the East Coast and threatening states from North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, employers should refresh themselves on the wage and hour issues arising from the possibility of missed work days in the wake of the storm.

A few brief points that all employers should be mindful of under the FLSA:

• A non-exempt employee generally does not have to be paid for weather-related absences. An employer may allow (or require) non-exempt employees to use vacation or personal leave days for such absences. But, if the employer has a collective bargaining agreement or handbook policies, the employer may obligate itself to pay through such policies.
• An exempt employee generally must be paid for absences caused by office closures due to weather, if he/she performs work in that week. The Department of Labor has stated that an employer may not dock a salaried employee for full days when the business is closed because of weather. Partial day deductions for weather related absences are not permitted.
• If certain employees are required to be on-call (such as public safety, IT, or other essential personnel) during the storm, and the employee cannot use the time effectively for his or her own purpose, the on-call time is compensable and the employee must be paid. However, if the employee is simply at home and available to be reached by company officials, then the time is not working time and an employer does not have to pay for that time.

Policies and procedures to keep in place:

• Decide whether your company will offer “weather days” for non-exempt workers who are absent because of disasters.
• Ensure that your payroll systems are prepared for employees working from home, longer shifts, or not taking lunches.
• Decide whether employees absent because of weather will be allowed / required to use vacation or PTO time.
• Ensure safety of payroll records and ability to process payroll from alternate location if needed.

Natural disasters pose a myriad of employment and HR issues from wage-hour to FMLA leave and the WARN Act. The best protection is to have a plan in place in advance to ensure your employees are paid and well taken care of during a difficult time. Our reference tool contains answers to common questions, and while aimed at employers in the Gulf Coast, if you have operations anywhere along the East Coast, you should find it helpful.

According to a federal judge in California, the answer is "Yes."  Judge Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a summary judgment ruling on October 16, 2009 holding that temporary employees of Kelly Services were owed overtime for time spent in interviews for job placement.  The rationale for the decision included findings that Kelly arranged the interviews, helped the applicants prepare for the interviews, and debriefed them afterwards.  The judge rejected Kelly's arguments that the interviews were purely voluntary, and for the benefit of the applicants (since they presumably wanted a job), and found that the interviews were "controlled" by Kelly.   The Judge did throw a bone to the temp agency by declaring that time spent traveling to interviews was not compensable. 

This case will no doubt be relied upon as a basis for class actions against temporary staffing companies around the country.  Any employer in this industry should be aware of this ruling and take a hard look at its policies to alleviate arguments of "control" over job interviews.  In the meantime, one can only hope that the appellate court will apply a bit more common sense. 

Doug Weiner and Matthew Miklave recently prepared a Client Alert noting an effort underway in Congress to broaden the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the Health Industry.  That Alert is excerpted below.

Fifteen United States senators have stepped forward to urge the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") to repeal a broad exemption from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") for home health care workers. Under current DOL regulations, home health care aides who perform companionship services for the elderly and infirm are exempt from the FLSA. The exemption applies to all workers in domestic service who provide companionship services for individuals unable to care for themselves. Domestic service is work performed within the residence of the family using the services. Companionship services are those that provide fellowship, care and protection to persons who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for their own needs. Home health care workers, whether employed directly by the family or by an employer or agency other than the household using their services, are exempt from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime pay requirements under Section 13(a)(15). 29 C.F.R. § 552.109(a). In 2007, the United States Supreme Court upheld the current rule against a strong legal challenge. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 549 U. S. 1105, 127 S. Ct. 853 (2007).

Recently, however, 15 senators wrote to U. S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis pressing the DOL to close this "loophole." Citing a $9 an hour industry-wide average wage, the senators argue in favor of extending federal wage requirements to "thousands of low-wage workers, primarily women, who are doing difficult, dangerous, yet extremely important work." Secretary Solis has already signaled that the DOL is reviewing this exemption.

Reversing the exemption may have significant consequences for individuals and companies providing or paying for home health care workers for seniors and the disabled. Coupled with an ever-increasing population in need of services, the DOL's actions could result in an additional strain on scarce resources.

We note that some state laws already narrow the federal exemption or otherwise limit its application. Pennsylvania, for example, exempts only home health care aides employed directly by a family for work performed within their home. New York requires time-and-one-half the minimum wage for overtime hours worked. Wherever a state law provides greater protection to employees than the FLSA, the state law prevails over federal law.

by Michael Kun

It has not received much publicity -- yet -- but Representative Alan Grayson of Florida has introduced the Paid Vacation Act, a proposed amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In short, if passed, the Paid Vacation Act would require employers with 100 or more employees to provide one week of paid vacation each year to each of its employees who had worked for 25 weeks or 1,250 hours. Three years after passage, the Act would require those employers to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and smaller employers (those with more than 50 employees) would have to provide one week of vacation.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of employers already provide employees with paid vacation, so the Act would have little or no impact upon them.

As for the remainder, without going into all of the business reasons an employer might have for not providing paid vacation, one has to question whether this is really the time to be considering such an amendment to the FLSA.

The economic climate in the country is dire enough, and employers in virtually every industry have had to conduct layoffs just to remain in business.

Employees aren't concerned about vacations. They're concerned about keeping their jobs.

Is adding another business cost to struggling businesses wise, knowing that it would likely force some of those businesses to conduct additional layoffs or reduce employee compensation?

Or might someone be playing to the masses by proposing it?

Of course, time will tell whether the Paid Vacation Act gains any traction. But it certainly seems that this is one bill that deserves to be tabled until the economy (hopefully) rebounds.
 

One of the issues that repeatedly rears its head in wage and hour litigation and Department of Labor investigations is whether employees are being compensated properly for meal periods.  One practice that is almost always controversial, in this regard, is the automatic payroll deduction for lunch.

Absent thorough policies and safeguards to prevent inaccurate timekeeping, the automatic deduction is a significant legal risk that should be used with extreme caution.  The reason -- it is too easy for employees to claim they have been asked to work through lunch, or that they can not always leave their workstation at the designated time to take advantage of the full period.  Some tips to avoid "he said - she said" litigation in this area include the following.

1. Implement a clear off the clock policy explaining that employees should not work off the clock and should report any supervisor who makes such a request.
2. Maintain clear procedures for "exceptions" to automatic lunch deductions so that supervisors can correct payroll as warranted by special circumstances or business needs.
3. Require employees to acknowledge any deviation from automatic deduction practices.
4. Train managers on the importance of payroll polices and procedures.

Following these simple steps can help avoid misunderstandings and eventual litigation.  Even if you prevail, wage and hour litigation can be fact intensive and expensive.  Accordingly, this is one area where you can ill afford to not have comprehensive policies and procedures in place.

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.