The complex web of federal and state wage and hour laws create potentially devastating risk of exposure for employers. Years of possible liability for yet unknown claims, liquidated damages, shifting attorneys’ fees, not to mention the risk of class or collective suit, can quickly transform seemingly minor and technical irregularities into expensive complications. And for companies that partner with other entities to meet their staffing needs, resolving this risk of liability is a critical piece of their business operations.
Quite often, the quick solution for this concern is through a traditional business arrangement: contractual indemnification. Shifting risk of loss via contract is fairly standard, especially as courts generally enforce the unambiguous terms of the parties’ agreement. Yet employers should take note of a concerning trend among courts across the country, which have in some cases refused to enforce indemnification agreements in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) matters on public policy grounds.
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Time Is Money: A Quick Wage and Hour Tip . . . Contractual Indemnification May Not Guard Against FLSA Claims
- California Court of Appeal Holds That Prospective Meal Waivers for Shifts Between Five and Six Hours are Enforceable
- New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms: Commissions Are Wages Under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law
- Insider Strategies for Wage and Hour Compliance Success: One-on-One with Paul DeCamp
- New Paycheck Requirements Coming to Ohio in April