New York Wage-Hour Law

Michael D. Thompson
Michael D. Thompson

In Gonzalez v. Allied Concrete Industries, Inc., thirteen construction laborers filed suit in the Eastern District of New York.  The plaintiffs claimed they worked in excess of forty hours per week, but were not paid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

To obtain information regarding the plaintiffs’ activities during hours they claimed to have been working, the defendants sought an order compelling discovery of their ATM and cell phone records.

ATM Receipts

The defendants asserted that records of the plaintiffs’ ATM transactions were likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they could reveal each plaintiff’s “whereabouts and activities during hours they claim to have been working.” The defendants relied in large part on Caputi v. Topper Realty Corp., a 2015 case decided by the same court.  In Caputi, a plaintiff asserting overtime claims was ordered to produce “a sampling of records of her ATM transactions” for the time period in question.

In denying the defendants’ motion, the Court acknowledged the ruling in Caputi.  However, the Court concluded that the discovery of ATM records was allowed in that case because the Caputi defendants stated that witnesses would testify that the plaintiff attended prolonged lunches during the workweek and withdrew cash from ATMs for that purpose.

Conversely, in Allied Concrete, the Court concluded that the defendants had not shown any “evidentiary nexus between the en masse discovery sought and a good faith basis to believe that such discovery material is both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.”

Cell Phone Records

The defendants in Allied Concrete also sought the release of the plaintiffs’ cell phone records in order to determine whether the plaintiffs “engaged in personal activities such as non-work related telephone calls, extended telephone calls, [and] frequent text messaging” during times they claimed to have been working.

The defendants cited to Caputi and to Perry v. The Margolin & Weinreb Law Group, another Eastern District of New York case from 2015.  In both cases, the plaintiffs asserting wage hour claims were ordered to produce cell phone records based on testimony that they had made personal telephone calls during the workday.  Allied Concrete had not obtained any such testimony.  Accordingly, the Court stated that the defendants’ speculation that the cell phone records might contain relevant evidence did not warrant a “wholesale intrusion into the private affairs” of the plaintiffs.

Employers, therefore, should be aware that electronic evidence of an employee’s activities may be discoverable in FLSA cases – provided that there is a sufficient basis for seeking the discovery.

New York Attorney General Contends Domino’s is a Joint Employer with Franchisees

After spending the last few years litigating with Domino’s franchisees over wage hour violations, the New York Attorney General has filed suit contending that franchisor Domino’s Pizza Inc. is a joint employer with three franchisees, and therefore is liable for the “systematic underpayment” of franchise employees.

The New York Attorney General also claims that, regardless of whether it’s a joint employer, Domino’s is liable for misrepresentations and nondisclosures that led to the underpayment of employees at the three franchises and violated the New York Franchise Sales Act.

Background

Through settlements in March 2014 and April 2015, twelve Domino’s franchise owners paid a total of approximately $1.4 million to settle the Attorney General’s claims for violations of New York’s minimum wage and overtime laws.

After the second settlement, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman accused Domino’s Pizza, Inc. of “turn[ing] a blind eye to illegal working conditions.”  Mr. Schneiderman stated:  “My message for Domino’s CEO Patrick Doyle is this: To protect the Domino’s brand, protect the basic rights of the people who wear the Domino’s uniform, who make and deliver your pizzas.”

Domino’s was thus left to choose its poison:  It could involve itself directly in addressing the alleged “illegal working conditions” at the risk of making itself a joint employer; or it could maintain a hands-off approach in an effort to avoid joint employer status, while further violations might increase its potential liability.

Nevertheless, Domino’s attempted to balance these concerns.  In a March 18, 2016 letter to the New York Attorney General’s Labor Bureau Chief, Domino’s offered to fund legal compliance training for franchisees, require franchisee’s to accept a code of conduct and pay for a monitor to inspect franchisee stores for compliance.  Domino’s further stated that it would “work with its franchisees in an effort to create a pool of funds to pay restitution to any underpaid franchisee employees.”

Allegations of Joint Employment

The Attorney General apparently found Domino’s proposal to be insufficient.  Therefore, in May 2016, the Attorney General filed a Verified Petition in New York Supreme Court alleging that Domino’s was a joint employer with its franchisees because it had:

  • required Franchisees to purchase hardware and software for Domino’s PULSE management system;
  • maintained payroll and employment records for franchisees;
  • exerted control over franchisee hiring, firing and disciplining of employees;
  • controlled aspects of employee compensation at franchisee stores;
  • dictated staffing and scheduling requirements for franchisee stores;
  • imposed an antiunion policy on franchisees; and
  • required a franchisee purchasing existing stores to keep the prior staff largely intact and in the same positions at the same rates of pay.

Domino’s status as a joint employer in this case will be evaluated under New York law.  However, it is notable that in Patterson v. Domino’s, the California Supreme Court examined Domino’s practices in 2014 and found it was not a joint employer under California law.  The California Supreme Court based its decision on uncontradicted evidence that the franchisee (i) made day-to-day decisions involving the hiring, supervision, and disciplining of his employees, and (ii) ejected the franchisor’s suggestion that an alleged sexual harasser should be fired, and neither expected nor sustained any sanction for rejecting that suggestion.

Alleged Misrepresentations

In addition to joint employment, the Verified Petition alleges:

Domino’s itself caused many of the wage violations because Domino’s encouraged franchisees to use a “Payroll Report” function in the software system Domino’s required franchisees to install and use in their stores (known as “PULSE”), even though Domino’s knew since at least 2007 — yet failed to disclose to franchisees — that PULSE’s “Payroll Report” systematically under-calculated the gross wages owed to workers.

The Verified Petition further alleges that, while failing to tell franchisees about the problems with PULSE, Domino’s charged franchisees $15,000 to $25,000 for the PULSE hardware and software.

Therefore, the New York Attorney General contends that Domino’s is liable for fraud and violations of the New York Franchise Sales Act (which requires a franchisor to provide a prospective franchisee with detailed information regarding “all written or oral arrangements,” including those for the sale of goods or services, in which the franchisor has an interest).

Wage Hour Violations

Underlying these theories for imposing liability on Domino’s are the allegations that its franchisees failed to pay the proper overtime rates to tipped employees.

For example, the Verified Petition alleges that PULSE fails to properly calculate overtime pay for tipped employees under New York law.  12 NYCRR § 146-1.4 states that when “an employer is taking a credit toward the basic minimum hourly rate…, the overtime rate shall be the employee’s regular rate of pay before subtracting any tip credit, multiplied by 1½, minus the tip credit.”  The regulation goes on to state:

It is a violation of the overtime requirement for an employer to subtract the tip credit first and then multiply the reduced rate by one and one half.

The New York minimum wage was $8.75 per hour in 2015, and the maximum tip credit was $3.10 per hour.  Thus, the overtime rate of any tipped employee should have been at least ($8.75 per hour x 1.5 for overtime) minus ($3.10 per hour tip credit), or $10.03 per overtime hour.

However, according to the Verified Petition, the software used by the Domino’s franchisees subtracted the tip credit first, and then multiplied the reduced rate by 1.5.  The Petition states:  “PULSE calculates the employee’s overtime rate at $8.48 per hour ($5.65 times 1.5), which is $1.55 per hour less than the then-current 2015 legal overtime rate for tipped delivery employees.”

Accordingly, the Verified Petition contends that “PULSE systematically undercalculates the gross overtime wages owed to franchise delivery workers who were paid tipped rates.”

The New York Attorney general further contends that Domino’s is liable because the franchisees (i) did not aggregate the hours worked by employees who worked at more than one location; (ii) claimed tip credits for employees on days when they works at a non-tipped position for more than 20% of the employee’s shift or for two hours or more during the shift; (iii) did not calculate or pay the required “spread of hours” pay when a daily shift is longer than 10 hours; and (iv) required drivers to pay their own expenses for delivery vehicles in violation of New York Labor Law §193.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, the franchise business model will continue to give rise to claims of joint employment.  To the extent possible, franchisors should attempt to eliminate any appearance that they control the employment with a franchisee, particularly in regard to hiring, firing and the payment of wages.  Where involvement by the franchisor is unavoidable, a franchisor must make every effort to comply with the law and communicate any potential concerns to franchisees.

The top story on Employment Law This Week is California’s statewide $15 minimum wage.

On April 4, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that will raise California’s minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour by 2022 for companies with more than 25 employees. The increase will begin next year, moving from 10 dollars an hour to $10.50. California – one of the world’s biggest economies – is the first U.S. state to commit to a 15 dollar minimum wage. And the trend is continuing, with similar legislation signed in New York last week as well. David Jacobs from Epstein Becker Green has more on the trend and what employers in California can do to prepare.

View the episode below or learn more about the New York legislation in an EBG Act Now Advisory.

Evan J. Spelfogel
Evan J. Spelfogel

On March 31, 2016, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill increasing the statewide minimum wage on a phased in basis over the next five years, to $15.00 per hour in some, but not all New York counties (“Minimum Wage Law”).  This is in addition to a bill enacted on December 31, 2015, that increased the subminimum wage for tipped employees in the hospitality industry from $5 to $7.50 per hour.

The Minimum Wage Law now provides for a tiered increase from the current statewide rate of $9.00, to $11, $13, and $15 per hour effective December 31, 2016, 2017, and 2018 respectively, for work performed in New York City for employers with more than 10 employees.  A slightly longer phase in period, running to December 2019, is provided for New York City employers with 10 or fewer employees and for Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties. For these counties, the minimum wage is set to increase to $10.00 per hour by December 31, 2016, and then $1 every year until reaching $15.00 per hour on December 31, 2021.

For work performed in other counties throughout NY State, the minimum wage increase will be more gradual, increasing to $9.70 per hour on December 31, 2016, followed by a 70 cent increase every year until December 31, 2020, when the minimum wage will reach $12.50 per hour.  After December 31, 2020, the minimum wage in these counties will continue to increase on an indexed schedule to be set by the Director of the Division of Budget (“DOB”) in consultation with the Commissioner of Labor.

By William J. Milani, Dean L. Silverberg, Jeffrey M. Landes, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Anna A. Cohen, and Jennifer A. Goldman

The New York State Department of Labor (“DOL”) has adopted wage deduction regulations (“Final Regulations”) pertaining to the expanded categories of permissible wage deductions in the New York Labor Law, effective October 9, 2013. 

As we previously reported (see the Act Now Advisory entitled “New York State Releases Proposed Wage Deduction Regulations”), among other things, the Final Regulations (i) set forth information concerning the subset of permissible wage deductions referred to as “similar payments for the benefit of the employee,” (ii) provide information regarding prohibited deductions and requirements relating to an employee’s authorization, and (iii) specify procedures and notice requirements concerning the recovery of overpayments and wage advances to employees.

The Final Regulations are codified at 12 New York Code of Rules and Regulations Part 195.

The Final Regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations issued during the summer.  Of note, the Final Regulations clarify the following:

  • A single written authorization containing more than one deduction is permissible as long as all the required information is provided.
  • For the purpose of calculating time frames, any reference to “days” means calendar days, not business days. Any reference to a “week” means seven consecutive days.
  • Dispute resolution provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements existing at the time the Final Regulations are issued will be deemed compliant so long as they provide at least as much protection to the employee as the Final Regulations.  In this regard, the employee must be permitted to provide written notice of his or her objections to the deduction, the employer must provide a written reply containing its position with regard to the deduction and a reason why the employer agrees or disagrees, and the employer must cease deductions until the reply has been provided and any appropriate adjustments have been made.
  • Dispute resolution provisions in collective bargaining agreements executed after the issuance of the Final Regulations must provide at least as much protection to the employee, as described above, AND must specifically reference the applicable dispute resolution section of the Final Regulations.

During the Public Comment period, which ended on July 6, 2013, commenters requested, among other things, that the regulations permit employers to charge employees for the reasonable replacement value of items provided by the employer that had been lost, stolen, or destroyed while in the employee’s possession. The DOL responded that “[n]either the statute nor the regulations allow this to take place through deductions.”  Accordingly, it is important that employers do not make any deductions from wages for lost, stolen, or destroyed property.

In response to commenters, the DOL also clarified that the Final Regulations expressly repeal the “10 percent rule,” which capped deductions relating to “similar payments for the benefit of the employee” at 10 percent of the employee’s gross pay for the particular pay period.  Employers should keep in mind, however, that certain deductions may not reduce an employee’s hourly wage below the statutory minimum wage. 

What Employers Should Do Now

  • Review employee handbooks and other policies and procedures to reflect the rules set forth in the Final Regulations (including updating lists of permissible deductions).
  • Ensure that payroll systems (including any third-party vendors used for this purpose) have the capability to make any newly implemented deductions.
  • Inform payroll, human resources, and any other applicable departments responsible for implementing wage deductions of the specific deadlines and dispute procedures set forth in the Final Regulations.
  • Update wage deduction authorization forms so that such forms comply with the rules set forth in the Final Regulations.
  • Ensure all new loan or repayment arrangements comply with the new rules.
  • Implement procedures that allow employees to contest deductions for overpayments and wage advances in compliance with the procedures set forth in the Final Regulations.
  • Prepare notices in connection with deductions relating to overpayments.

By: Kara M. Maciel

Earlier this month, we released our Wage and Hour Division Investigation Checklist for employers and have received a lot of great feedback with additional questions. Following up on that feedback, we will be regularly posting FAQs as a regular feature of our Wage & Hour Defense Blog.

In this post, we address a common issue that many employers are facing in light of increased government enforcement at the state and federal level from the Department of Labor.

QUESTION: “I am aware that my industry is being targeted by the DOL for audits and several of my competitors in the area are facing wage and hour investigations.  What should I be doing now to proactively prepare my company in the event we are next for an audit?”

ANSWER:  Even though your company may not be in the midst of an investigation, there are still several action items that you can implement to place your company is the best possible position to defend against any DOL investigation.  For example:

  • Check current 1099’s as well as all 1099’s going back several years and review the actual job duties of those persons paid as independent contractors to verify that they were not, in fact, employees.
  •  Examine all written job descriptions to ensure that they: (i) accurately reflect the work done, (ii) have been updated where necessary, and (iii) indeed justify the applicable exemptions.
  • Review time keeping systems to ensure that non-exempt employees are being paid for all work performed, including work pre- or post-shift and during meal breaks
  • Ensure that required payroll records and written policies and procedures are current, accurate, and compliant.

Training staff is another key component of protecting your company from costly wage and hour claims. Not only could all managers be familiar with the FLSA and state wage and hour laws, but all employees should understand their role in proper record keeping and overtime. Key managers and personnel should be aware of the DOL’s inspection rights and what the DOL can and cannot do while on your property.

Finally, developing a response team with legal counsel is critical to being prepared if an inspection official knocks on your door unannounced. The response team should be armed with information and protocols so they know how to address the DOL’s subpoenas, questions, document requests, and other investigative demands.

In subsequent FAQs, we will discuss in more detail who should participate in a response team and what information they need to have in the event of an unscheduled DOL audit. But, in the meantime, regular internal reviews and audits of your wage and hour practices and documentation is key to protecting against costly exposure from a government investigation.

* * * * * * * * * *

Be sure to check out our Wage and Hour Division Investigation Checklist for more helpful tips and advice about preparing for and managing a Wage Hour Inspection.

 

By Amy Traub and Desiree Busching

Like the fashions in the magazines on which they work and the blockbuster movies for which they assist in production, unpaid interns are becoming one of the newest, hottest trends— the new “it” in class action litigation. As we previously advised, there has been an increased focus on unpaid interns in the legal arena, as evidenced by complaints filed by former unpaid interns in September 2011 against Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. and in February 2012 against Hearst Corporation. In those lawsuits, unpaid interns working on the hit movie “Black Swan” and at Harper’s Bazaar magazine, respectively, alleged that their high-profile employers violated federal and state wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay them for work they claim was more aptly suited for paid employees.

The newest case to hit the scene on this issue has been filed by Lucy Bickerton, a former unpaid intern of “The Charlie Rose Show” on PBS. In her March 14, 2012 complaint, Bickerton alleges that she worked for the show in 2007 for approximately 25 hours per week and that the show and its host had her performing “productive work”—work for which she claims she, and other interns like her, should have been paid.

According to a press release issued by the plaintiffs’ firm that has filed all three of these prominent unpaid intern cases, “[s]ince filing a lawsuit on behalf of unpaid Fox [Searchlight Pictures, Inc.] interns late last year, our office has received numerous calls from other current and former interns who were not paid for the productive work they performed. This [Bickerton] lawsuit should send a clear message to employers that the practice of classifying employees as ‘interns’ to avoid paying wages runs afoul of federal and state wage and hour laws.”

The clear message received is that this firm is on the offensive, and others will undoubtedly soon follow suit. For employers who have checked their unpaid internship programs to ensure that they are in compliance with the tests utilized by both federal and state agencies and courts in analyzing whether individuals qualify as “interns,” it is time to double-check. With the attention this issue is seeing in the media and before the courts, it is clear that if misclassified unpaid interns are not paid now, employers may just be paying later.

EBG colleague Susan Gross Sholinsky recently prepared an Act Now Advisory discussing New York State’s December 21, 2010 opinion letter regarding whether an internship will qualify for an exception to applicable minimum wage rules. The New York State Department of Labor utilizes the United States Department of Labor’s six-step test, but adds an additional five factors to determine whether the internship will be exempt from minimum wage rules. In order to qualify for the exemption, the following eleven factors must be satisfied:

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

2. The training is for the benefit of the intern.

3. The interns do not displace regular employees and any work they may do is under close supervision.

4. The employer who provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees or students and, on occasion, operations may actually be impeded.

5. The trainees or students are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period and are free to take employment elsewhere in the same field.

6. The trainees or students have been notified, in writing, that they will not receive any wages for such training and are not considered employees for minimum wage purposes.

7. Any clinical training is performed under the supervision and direction of individuals knowledgeable and experienced in the activities being performed.

8. The trainees or students do not receive employee benefits.

9. The training is general, so as to qualify the trainees or students to work in any similar business, rather than designed specifically for a job with the employer offering the program.

10. The screening process for the internship is not the same as for employment, and does not appear to be for that purpose, but involves only criteria relevant for admission to an independent educational program.

11. Advertisements for the program are couched clearly in terms of education or training, rather than employment, although employers may indicate that qualified graduates may be considered for employment.

For additional information and analysis, please click on the link to the Act Now Advisory.

By: Kara Maciel

Following up on our previous blog posting from November 2, 2010, on December 16, 2010, the New York State Department of Labor issued a new minimum wage order (the “Order”) which will bring immediate changes to the restaurant and hotel industries. Under the Order, employees will be due a higher minimum wage and subject to new tip pooling rules. Meanwhile, employers will need to comply with more stringent recordkeeping requirements. Although employers have until February 28, 2011, to adjust their payrolls, they will still owe their employees back pay as of January 1, 2011. Important highlights include: 

Higher Minimum Wage for Tipped Employees: 

·        Food service workers must earn at least $5.00 per hour and no more than $2.25 per hour in tip credits; however, the total of tips they receive plus their hourly wages must still amount to the federal and state minimum wage of $7.25 per hour

·        Service employees (at non-resort hotels) must earn at least $5.65 per hour and no more than $1.60 per hour in tip credits; however, the total of tips they receive plus their hourly wages must amount to the federal and state minimum wage of $7.25 per hour

·        Service employees (at resort hotels) must earn at least $4.90 per hour and no more than $2.35 per hour in tip credits; however their weekly average for tips must amount to at least $4.10 per hour  

Mandatory Tip Pooling is Permitted  

·        Employers may require food service employees to pool tips with co-workers

·        Employers may establish the percentage of pooled tips to be distributed to each occupation

·        However, only “food service workers” may receive distributions from the tip pool, e.g., wait staff; counter personnel who serve food or beverages to customers; bus persons; bartenders, including service bartenders; barbacks; food runners; captains who serve food directly to customers; and hosts who greet and seat guests 

No More Set-Off of Wages Paid in Excess of Minimum Wage: 

·        Employers must pay an additional hour at the rate of minimum wage for each hour the employee works beyond 10 hours per day, regardless of whether the rate of pay for the first 10 hours is above the minimum wage 

Non-Exempt Employees Must be Paid an Hourly Rate of Pay: 

·        All non-exempt hospitality workers (except commissioned salespersons) must be paid on an hourly basis, i.e., no non-exempt salaried workers

·        In calculating the overtime rate of pay, employers no longer may subtract an employee’s tip credit from the regularly hourly rate of pay and then multiply the reduced rate by one and one half; instead, employers must calculate the overtime rate based upon an employee’s full hourly rate 

Employers Must Keep the Following Records for Six Years: 

·        Amount in tips contributed by each employee during each shift (cash and credit)

·        Amount in tips collected by each employee by date (cash and credit)

·        Occupations eligible for tip pooling and each occupation’s respective percentage of the tip pool 

Clarification as to “Service Charges:” 

·        Employers may retain fees identified as “service charges” if, and only if, they clearly explain to customers that such charges are not distributed to service employees 

The Order imposes several important requirements, but unfortunately, leaves employers with a very short amount of time to implement the necessary changes to their payroll and recordkeeping methods. Despite having until February 28, 2011, to comply with the Order, employers will be best served by taking immediate action to bring their businesses in compliance with the new regulations. The interim period during January and February should be utilized to ensure proper records are kept and that an employer’s tip pool is not shared with ineligible individuals. Finally, the bullet points above represent only a portion of the changes under the Order, and employers should become familiar with the entire regulation before the end of the grace period.

By Amy J. Traub

The New York State Department of Labor recently issued a proposed rule which would combine the current wage orders for the restaurant and hotel industries to form a single Minimum Wage Order for the Hospitality Industry.  If adopted, the Wage Order would affect requirements related to the minimum wage, tip credits and pooling, customer service charges, allowances, overtime calculations, and other common issues within the restaurant and hotel industries.  Additionally, the Wage Order would provide helpful guidance for traditionally ambiguous wage issues such as the handling of service charges and the definition of an employee uniform for purposes of a laundry allowance.  Highlights of the Wage Order include:

·         Minimum Wage (Effective January 1, 2011) 

o       Food service workers would need to receive at least $5.00 per hour and no more than $2.25 per hour in tip credits; however, the total of tips they receive plus their hourly wages would need to amount to $7.25 per hour

o       Service employees (at non-resort hotels) would need to receive at least $5.65 per hour and no more than $1.60 per hour in tip credits; however, the total of tips they receive plus their hourly wages would need to amount to $7.25 per hour

o       Service employees (resort hotel employees) would need to receive at least $4.90 per hour and no more than $2.35 per hour in tip credits; however their weekly average for tips would need to be at least $4.10 per hour 

 

·         Notifications to Employees and Customers 

o       Prior to beginning employment, employers now would need to notify employees that they are taking a tip credit from their wages

o       Employers would need to notify employees of any changes to their hourly rate of pay

o       Employers would need to notify customers of any charge that is neither for food/beverage nor a gratuity to a service employee; for example, a banquet or special function charge 

 

·         No More Set-Off of Wages Paid in Excess of Minimum Wage 

o       Employers would need to pay an additional hour at the rate of minimum wage for each hour the employee works beyond 10 hours per day, regardless of whether the rate of pay for the first 10 hours is above the minimum wage

 

·         No More Salary for Non-Exempt Employees 

o       Currently, a non-exempt employee can still be paid a salary so long as he/she is paid one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked beyond 40 hours during the week

o       If adopted, the Wage Order would require that all non-exempt workers (except commissioned salespersons) are paid on an hourly basis 

 

·         Tip Pooling 

o       Employers could require food service workers to join a tip pool

o       This would not apply to employees who do not provide direct food service to customers (however, a host/hostess who seats guests would be considered a direct food service employee and therefore eligible to participate in a tip pool) 

 

·         Increased Guidance 

o       Employers would be able to retain service charges if, and only if, they clearly explain to customers that such charges are not distributed to service employees

o       The Wage Order would exclude from the definition of “uniform” any clothing that may be worn as part of an employee’s wardrobe outside of work

o       Employers would not need to reimburse employees for the laundry expenses of any uniform clothing that can be washed with the employee’s non-uniform clothing; for example, a uniform that does not require dry cleaning

The new Wage Order signifies the New York State Department of Labor’s attempt to simplify the wage and hour rules for the restaurant and hotel industries while stepping up its enforcement of overtime and deduction violations, particularly with respect to non-exempt employees who are currently paid a salary as opposed to an hourly wage.   Of course, these highlighted changes are only a portion of the changes that would come into effect in the event the Wage Order is adopted in its entirety.