On March 14, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) released two opinion letters concerning the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). One letter addresses the interplay between New York State’s overtime exemption for residential janitors (colloquially referred to as apartment “supers”) and the FLSA, which does not exempt such employees, and the other addresses whether time spent participating in an employer’s optional volunteer program constitutes “hours worked” requiring compensation under the FLSA.

While these opinion letters may not apply to all employers, they discuss general legal principles of broad applicability and so should be studied closely. In particular, these opinion letters are a useful reminder that (1) compliance with state law does not excuse noncompliance with the FLSA and generally will not constitute a good faith defense, and (2) when an employer directs or pressures an employee to volunteer, such as imposing consequences for not volunteering or guaranteeing a bonus for volunteering, volunteer time will likely constitute “hours worked” under the FLSA.

New York’s Residential Janitor Exemption:

In Opinion Letter FLSA 2019-1, the WHD addressed the interplay between federal and state minimum wage and overtime law in the context of live-in superintendents exempt from state minimum wage and overtime requirements under New York’s “residential janitor” exemption.

Starting with general legal principles, the WHD advised that when federal wage and hour law diverges from state or local law, the employer must comply with both laws and meet the standard of whichever law gives the employee the most protection.

The WHD then confirmed that the FLSA offers no analogue to New York’s residential janitor exemption, and that employers cannot rely on this or other state law exemptions from state law minimum wage and overtime requirements to establish a good faith defense to noncompliance with the FLSA.

But the WHD’s analysis did not end there. It explained that when an employee resides on the employer’s premises either permanently or for extended periods of time (whether as a building superintendent or otherwise), not all of the employee’s time at the residence is necessarily “hours worked” under the FLSA.

Here, the WHD cited the longstanding principle that time an employee spends on the premises eating, sleeping, entertaining or engaging in his own pursuits, free from any job-related duties, is not hours worked under the FLSA and need not be compensated. To reduce confusion about when an employee is actually working, the parties can establish a “reasonable agreement” establishing which hours on the premises are hours worked, thereby eliminating the need for precise recordkeeping of work hours. 

Participation in Employer-Sponsored Optional Volunteer Program:

 In FLSA 2019-2, the WHD examined employee participation in an employer’s optional community service program, pursuant to which employees were compensated for the time they spent volunteering during working hours or while they were required to be on the employer’s premises but were not compensated for hours that they spent volunteering outside of normal working hours (which occurred frequently). At the end of the year, those employees with the greatest community impact, decided, in part, based on the total overall hours each employee volunteered, receive a monetary award.

Relying on several previous opinion letters concerning volunteer activities, the WHD concluded that participation in the described program does not count as hours worked under the FLSA because:

  • The employer does not require participation in the program nor control or direct volunteer work;
  • Employees do not suffer adverse employment consequences if they do not participate in the program;
  • The employer does not guarantee participating employees a bonus for volunteering; and
  • The employer does not pressure its employees to participate in the program.

The WHD also confirmed that an employer can use a mobile device application to track a participating employee’s time spent volunteering and determine which team’s volunteering has the greatest community impact, provided that this application is not used to direct or control the volunteering activities.

As we wrote in this space just last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed a new salary threshold for most “white collar” exemptions.  The new rule would increase the minimum salary to $35,308 per year ($679 per week) – nearly the exact midpoint between the longtime $23,600 salary threshold and the $47,476 threshold that had been proposed by the Obama Administration.  The threshold for “highly compensated” employees would also increase — from $100,000 to $147,414 per year.

Should the proposed rule go into effect – and there is every reason to believe it will – it would be effective on January 1, 2020.  That gives employers plenty of time to consider their options and make necessary changes.

On first glance, dealing with the increase in the minimum salaries for white-collar exemptions would not appear to create much of a challenge for employers—they must decide whether to increase employees’ salaries or convert them to non-exempt status. Many employers that reviewed the issue and its repercussions back in 2016, when it was expected that the Obama Administration’s rules would go into effect, would likely disagree with the assessment that this is a simple task. The decisions not only impact the affected employees, but they also affect the employers’ budgets and compensation structures, potentially creating unwanted salary compressions or forcing employers to adjust the salaries of other employees.

In addition, converting employees to non-exempt status requires an employer to set new hourly rates for the employees. If that is not done carefully, it could result in employees receiving unanticipated increases in compensation—perhaps huge ones— or unexpected decreases in annual compensation.

The Impact on Compensation Structures

For otherwise exempt employees whose compensation already satisfies the new minimum salaries, nothing would need be done to comply with the new DOL rule. But that does not mean that those employees will not be affected by the new rule. Employers that raise the salaries of other employees to comply with the new thresholds could create operational or morale issues for those whose salaries are not being adjusted. It is not difficult to conceive of situations where complying with the rule by only addressing the compensation of those who fall below the threshold would result in a lower-level employee leapfrogging over a higher-level employee in terms of compensation, or where it results in unwanted salary compression.

Salary shifts could also affect any analysis of whether the new compensation structure adversely affects individuals in protected categories. A female senior manager who is now being paid only several hundred dollars per year more than the lower-level male manager might well raise a concern about gender discrimination if her salary is not also adjusted.

The Impact of Increasing Salaries

For otherwise exempt employees who currently do not earn enough to satisfy the new minimum salary thresholds, employers would have two choices: increase the salary to satisfy the new threshold or convert the employee to non-exempt status. Converting employees to non-exempt status can create challenges in attempting to set their hourly rates (addressed separately below).

If, for example, an otherwise exempt employee currently earns a salary of $35,000 per year, the employer may have an easy decision to give the employee a raise of at least $308 to satisfy the new threshold. But many decisions would not be so simple, particularly once they are viewed outside of a vacuum. What about the employee who is earning $30,000 per year? Should that employee be given a raise of more than $5,000 or should she be converted to non-exempt status? It is not difficult to see how one employer would choose to give an employee a $5,000 raise while another would choose to convert that employee to non-exempt status.

What if the amount of an increase seems small, but it would have a large impact because of the number of employees affected? A salary increase of $5,000 for a single employee to meet the new salary threshold may not have a substantial impact upon many employers. But what if the employer would need to give that $5,000 increase to 500 employees across the country to maintain their exempt status? Suddenly, maintaining the exemption would carry a $2,500,000 price tag. And that is not a one-time cost; it is an annual one that would likely increase as those employees received subsequent raises.

The Impact of Reclassifying an Employee as Non-Exempt

If an employer decides to convert an employee to non-exempt status, it faces a new challenge—setting the employee’s hourly rate. Doing that requires much more thought than punching numbers into a calculator.

If the employer “reverse engineers” an hourly rate by just taking the employee’s salary and assuming the employee works 52 weeks a year and 40 hours each week, it will result in the employee earning the same amount as before so long as she does not work any overtime at all during the year. The employee will earn more than she did previously if she works any overtime at all. And if she works a significant amount of overtime, the reclassification to non-exempt status could result in the employee earning significantly more than she earned before as an exempt employee. If she worked 10 hours of overtime a week, she would effectively receive a 37 percent increase in compensation.  And, depending on the hourly rate and the number of overtime hours she actually works, she could end up making more as a non-exempt employee than the $35,308 exemption threshold.

But calculating the employee’s new hourly rate based on an expectation that she will work more overtime than is realistic would result in the employee earning less than she did before. If, for instance, the employer calculated an hourly rate by assuming that the employee would work 10 hours of overtime each week, and if she worked less than that, she would earn less than she did before—perhaps significantly less. That, of course, could lead to a severe morale issue—or to the unwanted departure of a valued employee.

The U.S. Department of Labor has released a proposal to update the overtime rules under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers should be prepared to raise salaries to meet the minimum thresholds, pay overtime when appropriate, and otherwise adhere to the new rules if they go into effect.

Federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Unless exempt, employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. To be exempt from overtime (i.e., not entitled to receive overtime), an exemption must apply. For an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet certain minimum requirements. The “salary test” presently requires workers to make at least $23,660 on an annual basis to be exempt from overtime.

In March 2014, President Obama directed the Secretary of Labor to update the overtime regulations in the FLSA. In May 2016, after receiving more than 270,000 comments, the Department of Labor issued a final rule that raised the minimum salary threshold to $47,476 per year. That rule was declared invalid by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Department of Labor’s appeal – at the Department’s request – in September 2017.

The Department is now proposing to formally rescind the 2016 rule and is proposing a new rule that:

  • Raises the salary threshold from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $679 per week ($35,308 per year);
  • Allows employers to include “certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments” as up to 10% of the new $679 per week salary threshold; and
  • Raises the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees – which are subject to a minimal duties test – from $100,000 to $147,414.

The proposed rule makes no changes to the duties test for executive, administrative, and professional employees. The Department intends to propose updates to the salary levels every four years.

More information about the proposed rule is available here. Employers with salaried employees under $35,308 annually should closely monitor the development of the rule and be prepared to adjust their pay practices. If it goes into effect, the new threshold will likely take effect in early 2020.

Featured on Employment Law This Week:  The Ninth Circuit held that certain auto service advisors were not exempt because their position is not specifically listed in the FLSA auto dealership exemption.

The 9th relied on the principle that such exemptions should be interpreted narrowly. In a 5-4 decision last week, the Supreme Court found no “textual indication” in the FLSA for narrow construction. Applying a “fair interpretation” standard instead, the Court ruled that the exemption applies to service advisors because of the nature of the work.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post.

In many industries, sales are subject to ebbs and flows.  Sometimes the fish are biting; sometimes they aren’t.

A common device that employers with commissioned salespeople use to take the edge off of the slow weeks and to ensure compliance with minimum wage and overtime laws is the recoverable draw.  Under such a system, an employee who earns below a certain amount in commissions for a given period of time, often a week, receives an advance of as-yet unearned commissions to bring the employee’s earnings for the period up to a specified level.  Then in the next period, the employees’ commissions pay off the draw balance before the employee receives further payouts of commissions.  Occasionally, employees challenge these recoverable draw pay systems.

In Stein v. hhgregg, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered one such draw system.  The employer, a retail seller of appliances, furniture, and electronics at more than 220 stores nationwide, paid its salespeople entirely in commissions.  In weeks where an employee worked 40 or fewer hours and did not earn commissions sufficient to cover minimum wage for the week, the employee would receive a draw against future commissions sufficient to bring the employee’s earnings for the week up to minimum wage.  In weeks where the employee worked more than 40 hours, and did not earn sufficient commissions to cover one and a half times the minimum wage, the employee would receive a draw against future commissions sufficient to bring the employee’s earnings for the week up to one and a half times the minimum wage.  The purpose of this pay structure was, among other things, to achieve compliance with the overtime exemption in section 7(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for certain commissioned employees of a retail or service establishment.  The company’s policy also provided that upon termination of employment, an employee will immediately pay the company any unpaid draw balance.

Two employees of a store in Ohio brought a putative nationwide collective action under the FLSA, as well as a putative state law class action asserting unjust enrichment with respect to the company’s more than twenty-five locations in Ohio.  They alleged failure to pay the minimum wage or overtime based on the theory that offsetting draw payments against future commissions amounted to an improper kick-back of wages to the employer.  They also claimed that the employer did not pay for certain non-sales activities and encouraged employees to work off the clock.  The complaint did not specifically allege that the two named plaintiffs worked off the clock or that the one plaintiff who was a former employee had to repay a draw balance when his employment ended.  The district court granted the company’s motion to dismiss, concluding that there was no FLSA violation and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

On appeal, after reviewing extensive interpretive guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor, the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ central theory that a recoverable draw amounts to an impermissible wage kick-back.  To the court, the key consideration is that under the pay system at issue, “deductions will be made from wages not delivered, that is, from future earned commissions that have not yet been paid.”  Because the company does not recover wages already “delivered to the employee,” the court “h[e]ld that this practice does not violate the ‘free and clear’ regulation.  See 29 C.F.R. § 531.35 (emphasis added).”  (Op. at 9-10.)

The divided panel reversed, however, in certain other respects.

First, the court determined that the FLSA section 7(i) overtime exemption does not apply because although the company’s pay plan provides for a minimum rate equal to one and one half times the minimum wage for any week where an employee works more than 40 hours, the exemption technically requires, among other things, a rate that is more than one and a half times the minimum wage.  (Note: federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, and 1.5 times that rate is $10.875 per hour.  Strictly speaking, a wage of $10.875 does not satisfy this aspect of the exemption, whereas $10.88 per hour does.  Perhaps on remand it will turn out that the company actually paid $10.88 per hour rather than $10.875, as it would be very unusual for an employer to use a pay rate that does not round up to the nearest cent.)

Second, the panel majority held that the company’s policy of requiring repayment of a draw balance upon termination of employment violated the FLSA as an improper kick-back.  This part of the decision is interesting because the majority parted ways with the dissenting judge and the district court over the issue of policy versus practice.  The complaint did not suggest that either named plaintiff actually paid back any draw balance, and at oral argument it became clear that the company never enforced that policy and, in fact, had eliminated the repayment policy during the litigation.  The dissenting judge, like the district court before him, believed that because the company had never applied the policy to the named plaintiffs, the policy would not support a claim for relief.  The majority, however, took a more expansive approach to the matter.  “Incurring a debt, or even believing that one has incurred a debt, has far-reaching practical implications for individuals.  It could affect the way an individual saves money or applies for loans.  An individual might feel obligated to report that debt when filling out job applications, credit applications, court documents, or other financial records that require self-reporting of existing liabilities.”  (Op. at 15.)  In short, the court arguably opened the door to allowing plaintiffs to bring FLSA claims even where they have suffered no injury cognizable under the FLSA, so long as the policy they challenge could potentially cause them other types of consequential damages beyond those covered by the FLSA.  This aspect of the ruling appears to be a first of its kind in FLSA jurisprudence.

Third, the panel majority concluded that the plaintiffs adequately alleged minimum wage and overtime violations based on the assertions regarding the company’s knowledge and encouragement of working off the clock.  Although the dissent pointed out that the complaint contained no allegation that either named plaintiff actually suffered a minimum wage or overtime violation as a result of working off the clock, the majority focused on the alleged practice, rather than its specific application to the named plaintiffs, determining that “Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that this practice violates the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA.”  (Op. at 19.)

This decision provides several lessons for employers:

  • Generally speaking, the FLSA allows for the concept of a recoverable draw against commissions.  Recovering a draw against future commissions is not automatically an impermissible wage kick-back.  (Note that there may be certain restrictions under state law, and under some conditions a recoverable draw may violate the FLSA.)
  • When relying on the FLSA section 7(i) exemption, ensure that the policy is clear that an employee will receive more than one and a half times the federal minimum wage for any workweek in which the employer will claim the exemption.
  • Closely review any policies regarding recovery of draw payments (or, indeed, any other types of payments) upon an employee’s termination.  Such policies are often subject to challenge, and they can serve as a trigger for claims by demanding a payment right at the time when a departing employee may cease to have an interest in maintaining a positive relationship with an employer.
  • Be very careful about policies or practices that may arguably encourage employees to work off the clock.  Employers should have clear written policies prohibiting employees from working off the clock, and employees and supervisors should receive periodic training on those policies.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has denied the U.S. Department of Labor’s application to stay the case in which the district court enjoined the DOL’s new overtime regulations. The DOL had asked the court for a stay while the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals considered an interlocutory appeal of the injunction.

As wage and hour practitioners know:

  • In May 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that it would implement new regulations increasing the salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional overtime exemptions to $47,476 ($913 per week);
  • In September 2016, a group of 21 states filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas challenging the new regulations. A similar lawsuit was filed in the same court by several private industry groups, and those plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; and
  • In November 2016, the district court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the new regulations. The district court made a preliminary conclusion that, because the FLSA did not reference any salary thresholds, the DOL had exceeded its authority.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the DOL’s application for interlocutory review, and ordered that briefing be concluded by January 31, 2017.

The DOL then sought a stay of the proceedings before the district court.

In denying the DOL’s motion, the district court stated that the decision to grant or deny a discretionary stay pending an interlocutory appeal depends on: (1) whether the application is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured without a stay; (3) whether a stay will substantially injure other parties; and (4) where the public interest lies.

The district court stated that the DOL’s application argued only that the outcome of the case “will likely be controlled in large part by the Fifth Circuit’s decision on appeal.” Because the DOL did not “present a substantial case on the merits,” its application for a stay was denied.

Accordingly, the proceedings before the Fifth Circuit and the district court will proceed concurrently. We will continue to monitor each of these matters, and share any significant developments.

The new episode of Employment Law This Week offers a year-end roundup of the biggest employment, workforce, and management issues in 2016:

  • Impact of the Defend Trade Secrets Act
  • States Called to Ban Non-Compete Agreements
  • Paid Sick Leave Laws Expand
  • Transgender Employment Law
  • Uncertainty Over the DOL’s Overtime Rule and Salary Thresholds
  • NLRB Addresses Joint Employment
  • NLRB Rules on Union Organizing

Watch the episode below and read EBG’s Take 5 newsletter, “Top Five Employment, Labor & Workforce Management Issues of 2016.”

Overtime Clock Faces - Abstract PhotoWe have written more than a few times here about the new Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime rules that were scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016, dramatically increasing the salary threshold for white collar exemptions.

Most recently, we wrote about the November 22, 2016 nationwide injunction entered by a federal judge in Texas, enjoining the Department of Labor (“DOL”) from enforcing those new rules on the grounds that the DOL had overstepped its bounds.

The injunction threw the new rules into a state of limbo, as employers and employees alike were left to wonder whether the DOL would appeal that decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under normal circumstances, one would assume that the DOL would appeal that ruling.  However, normal circumstances do not exist.  With a new President set to be sworn in shortly, and with a new Secretary of Labor presumably to be appointed thereafter, there was much speculation about what the DOL would do.

The question has now been answered – at least for the short term.

On December 1, 2016 – perhaps not coincidentally, the same day the rules were to go into effect – the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed an appeal on behalf of the DOL. 

The DOL has issued a brief statement about its position, which may be found here: https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/final2016/litigation.htm

In short, it is the DOL’s position that the salary basis test has been part of the FLSA overtime rules since 1940, and that the new rules were the result of a comprehensive rule-making process that complied with the law.

While the notice of appeal has been filed, it remains difficult to predict whether or how long the appeal will in fact proceed.  Unless the President-elect should indicate otherwise, it is certainly possible that the new Secretary of Labor will pull the plug on the appeal shortly after he or she assumes the role.

We will continue to monitor the case and share any significant developments. In the meantime, it would appear safe to say that employers should feel comfortable that they need not comply with the new rules, and that those who already implemented or announced changes prior to the injunction should seek guidance on how best to proceed if they intend to rescind those changes.

Abstract Image - Business TimeAs we recently reported on our Wage & Hour Defense Blog, on November 22, 2016, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing its new overtime exemption rule that would have more than doubled the current salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions and was scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2016. To the extent employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will, at the very least, appear to allow many employers to postpone those changes—but likely not in the case of employees who work in New York State.

On October 19, 2016, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) announced proposed amendments to the state’s minimum wage orders (“Proposed Amendments”) to increase the salary basis threshold for executive and administrative employees under the state’s wage and hour laws (New York does not impose a minimum salary threshold for exempt “professional” employees).  The current salary threshold for the administrative and executive exemptions under New York law is $675 per week ($35,100 annually) throughout the state.  The NYSDOL has proposed the following increases to New York’s salary threshold for the executive and administrative exemptions:

Employers in New York City

Large employers (11 or more employees)

—$825.00 per week ($42,900 annually) on and after 12/31/16

—$975.00 per week ($50,700 annually) on and after 12/31/17

—$1,125.00 per week ($58,500 annually) on and after 12/31/18

Small employers (10 or fewer employees)

—$787.50 per week ($40,950 annually) on and after 12/31/16

—$900.00 per week ($46,800 annually) on and after 12/31/17

—$1,012.50 per week ($52,650 annually) on and after 12/31/18

—$1,125.00 per week ($58,500 annually) on and after 12/31/19

Employers in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties

—$750.00 per week ($39,000 annually) on and after 12/31/16

—$825.00 per week ($42,900 annually) on and after 12/31/17

—$900.00 per week ($46,800 annually) on and after 12/31/18

—$975.00 per week ($50,700 annually) on and after 12/31/19

—$1,050.00 per week ($54,600 annually) on and after 12/31/20

—$1,125.00 per week ($58,500 annually) on and after 12/31/21

Employers Outside of New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties

—$727.50 per week ($37,830 annually) on and after 12/31/16

—$780.00 per week ($40,560 annually) on and after 12/31/17

—$832.00 per week ($43,264  annually) on and after 12/31/18

—$885.00 per week ($46,020 annually) on and after 12/31/19

—$937.50 per week ($48,750 annually) on and after 12/31/20

The publication of the NYSDOL’s Proposed Amendments opened a 45-day public comment period. During this period, the NYSDOL will accept comments on the Proposed Amendments until December 3, 2016. The NYSDOL will then review any comments and publish new wage orders. The Proposed Amendments, if finalized by the NYSDOL, would become effective on December 31, 2016.

While New York employers may not, at this moment, be required to increase exempt employees’ salaries to $913 under the currently enjoined federal rule, they would still be required to comply with NYSDOL regulations, which, in all likelihood, will result in an increase to the current $675 weekly salary threshold for exempt executive and administrative employees.  Employers should also keep in mind that the salary threshold for the executive and administrative exemptions under the NYSDOL’s regulations will, if the Proposed Amendments are adopted, increase on December 31 of each year until, at least for many counties, the threshold reaches $1,125 per week.  Employers should consider these systematic annual salary increases when deciding by how much to increase exempt executive and administrative employees’ salaries this year, and whether surpassing this year’s proposed minimum threshold is economically and operationally prudent. Employers in other states should also examine whether there are similar state law requirements that will require changes such as these.

Most of us don’t think of window washers on high rise buildings as employees who qualify for an exemption from overtime pay.  But under an unusual set Clear blue skyof facts, this is precisely what the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Alvarado v. Corporate Cleaning Services, Inc., 782 F.3d 365 (7th Cir. 2015).

Corporate Cleaning Services (“CCS”) provided window washing services to high rise buildings.  When it received an order for a window washing job, it calculated a number of points, based on the job’s complexity and the number of hours estimated to complete it, to determine the price to charge the customer.  It also used that number of points to determine employees’ pay.  Generally, each window washer received the same number of points, and those points were multiplied by a rate specified in the collective bargaining agreement with the union to determine the amount each employee was paid for the job.  Employees worked primarily in the warmer months and were paid $40,000 to $60,000 per year.

Although the company called this compensation system a “piece rate” system, the Court found the company’s label was not determinative, and the employees actually were paid on a commission basis.  Under 29 U.S.C. §207(i), certain commission paid employees need not be paid time and one half for hours worked over 40 in a work week if they meet three requirements: (1) their regular pay is more than one and one half times the federal minimum wage; (2) more than half their compensation for a representative period of time (not less than one month) represents commission on goods or services; and (3) they are employed by a retail or service establishment.

There appeared to be no dispute that the plaintiffs received more than one and one half times the federal minimum wage, and the Court found that the plaintiffs were paid on a commission basis because they were paid only if there was a sale of window washing services to the public.  The Court had no difficulty in concluding that CCS was a “retail or service establishment”  because it sold its window washing services to building owners and managers who were the ultimate customers—they did not resell the window cleaning services.

Because the window washers met all three requirements for the overtime pay exemption for commissioned paid employees, the Court concluded they were not entitled to overtime pay.

The Court made some interesting observations about commission paid employees.

Work paid on a commission basis involves irregular hours of work, according to the Court.  An employee paid by the sale is not a commission paid worker if his sales are made at a uniform rate, such as one sale each hour.  Because the ratio of his hours of work to his pay is constant, that employee is effectively an hourly paid employee.

The CCS window washers necessarily worked irregular hours because they could not work in high winds, rain, snow, sleet and freezing temperatures.  While many of the workers took long vacations during the winter, they often worked more than eight hours a day during the other three seasons.  Because, among other factors supporting the commission exemption, the window washers could not count on working 40 hours per week for the entire year, the Court reasoned that the employer was exempt from the requirement of paying time and a half for overtime hours.