Remember that the DOL is Cracking Down on Unpaid Summer Internships

June 8th, 2010

With the summer months approaching and the economy still in a slump, many area businesses are likely to be flooded with the résumés of high-school and college students seeking internships. Before taking action on any of these résumés, it is important for businesses first to be aware that many internships must be paid.

The idea of a paid internship may seem like an oxymoron since the word ‘intern’ usually connotes an unpaid arrangement. Indeed, internships are generally thought of as unpaid, mutually beneficial arrangements: the intern gains valuable work experience that will undoubtedly be included on her résumé, and the business gains free labor for the summer, labor that will undoubtedly answer the telephone, file, copy, and perform other miscellaneous tasks. But for the purposes of wage and hour laws, our traditional notion of what an internship should be is irrelevant.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which is the federal law requiring the payment of minimum wages and overtime compensation, generally prohibits unpaid internships, especially in the private, for-profit sector. Unpaid internships in the public sector and at nonprofit, charitable organizations, where the interns volunteer without the expectation of compensation, are usually permissible. Yet, at for-profit companies, the FLSA by and large requires that interns be paid at least the minimum wage as well as any overtime compensation for hours worked above 40 in a given week. In other words, under the FLSA, interns will oftentimes be treated as employees and must be compensated for all hours worked.

Just in time for the summer months, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which is the federal agency with enforcement authority over wage-and-hour laws, appears to be cracking down on unpaid internships. In fact, in April, the DOL published a fact sheet on its Web site, titled “Internship Programs Under the Fair Labor Standards Act,” which makes it clear that the DOL will view most internships as an employment arrangement requiring compensation.

Although the fact sheet reiterates the FLSA’s implied mandate that internships be paid, it sets forth a six-part test for determining the circumstances under which an internship can be unpaid. As the fact sheet is quick to point out, these circumstances are very narrow, and the determination of whether an internship meets this narrow exception depends upon all of the facts and circumstances of each internship program, including the following six factors:

  • The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training, which would be given in an educational environment;
  • The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
  • The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
  • The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
  • The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
  • The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

If each of the above factors is met, then an employment arrangement does not exist under the FLSA, and, as a result, the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply. Under the DOL fact sheet, an intern will be considered an employee if she is engaged in any business operations or is performing any productive work for the business, such as filing, copying, answering telephones, or other clerical work or assisting customers. Additionally, if an intern is placed with a business for a trial period with the expectation that she will be hired on a permanent basis at some later date, that intern will also be considered an employee, entitled to minimum-wage and overtime compensation.

The fact that an intern may be receiving some benefit in the form of a new skill, work experience, or better work habits in the course of their internship is irrelevant and will not exclude them from the FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime requirements. In fact, meeting each of the six exclusion factors will be very difficult, and the DOL, given its ramped-up enforcement efforts, is likely to be highly skeptical of businesses that do not pay their interns, scrutinizing them very closely.

Educational internship programs are generally exempt from the FLSA’s minimum-wage and overtime requirements. Indeed, the more the internship is structured around an educational program, the more likely it will be considered an unpaid arrangement. Usually, this occurs when a college or university oversees the internship program and provides credit for participation in the internship. Even then, the intern cannot be performing any services that would benefit the business. If the intern does, the internship arrangement will come within the FLSA’s protections.

Before taking on any interns this summer, businesses should carefully examine the nature of the work the intern will be doing. Bear in mind that anytasks that benefit the business, such as filing or copying, entitle an intern to compensation of at least minimum wage and overtime pay, when applicable. Businesses that erroneously label an individual an intern violate the minimum wage and overtime laws, and can face severe penalties.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

NLRB General Counsel Resigns

June 3rd, 2010

Ronald Meisburg, General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, announced that he will resign effective June 20.  Meisburg had received a recess appointment to this position in January 2006 from President George W. Bush.

President Obama now has the immediate authority to appoint a successor.  Given his pro-union appointments to the NLRB in March, many are left wondering whether President Obama will appoint another union supporter to the NLRB, this time in the soon-to-be vacant position of General Counsel.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

Summer attire can cause headaches for employers

June 2nd, 2010

Summertime is approaching, and some employers may find that as the heat creeps into the workplace, so do the sundresses, shorts, tank tops, and sandals.  Some employees wear clothes that seem to reveal more than they conceal, which can create problems in the workplace, not only because an employee’s casual attire may not reflect the level of professionalism an organization wants to portray, but also because, in extreme cases, attire that is inappropriate could form the basis for hostile work environment claims.  Many employers implement dress codes to help alleviate these issues.  However, implementing a dress code can bring its own set of problems.  If you have a dress code, or are thinking of implementing one, here are some things you should keep in mind:

  • Enforce the dress code policy consistently.  As with any policy, the failure to apply a dress code equally to all employees puts employers at risk for discrimination claims.
  • Put your policy in writing and make sure your policy is clear and specific.  It should be easy for employees to understand how they can abide by the dress code and easy for supervisors to know when a violation occurs.  A policy that is vague and allows for differences in interpretation may cause more problems than it solves.
  • Beware of possible conflicts with state or federal law.  For example, a policy that prohibits men from wearing ponytails or earrings while allowing women to do so could constitute discrimination based on sex or gender.
  • Banning headwear or facial hair could violate religious beliefs.  In many cases, you may have to accommodate these beliefs.

Clearly the workplace of today differs from the workplace of 30 years ago.  Many employers have moved towards a more casual attitude with respect to workplace attire.  However, there can be a fine line between casual and inappropriate.  If you are experiencing problems with inappropriate attire in your workplace, you may want to create – or revamp – a dress code.  To avoid potential conflicts with state or federal laws, be sure to consult with labor and employment counsel for guidance in drafting, revising or implementing a dress code.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

Department of Labor Issues Final Rule for Federal Contractors on Employee Labor Law Rights

May 23rd, 2010

On May 20, 2010, the Department of Labor published final regulations relative to the labor law rights of employees who work for federal contractors. Entitled “Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws,” the new regulations require covered government contractors and subcontractors to post a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), such as their right to form, join or assist in a union and to otherwise engage in certain protected activities. The regulations implement President Obama’s Executive Order 13496 signed shortly after he took office on January 30, 2009. Although the regulations are effective on June 19, 2010, contractors do not need to post the employee rights notice until a new federal contract is signed or modified.

The notice specifically outlines employees’ rights under the NLRA and provides examples of unlawful employer conduct as well as unlawful union conduct. Under the new regulations, primary contractors must take active steps to ensure that their subcontractors comply with the rule. For instance, primary contractors must have language in their subcontracts requiring subcontractors to post the notice. The rule does not apply to subcontracts of less than $10,000.

The rule adopts a widespread posting requirement, mandating that the notice be posted wherever employees perform work related to the performance of the contract. Like other required notices, this notice must be posted prominently in conspicuous locations where employees are likely to see it. However, the Department of Labor has significantly expanded the scope of the posting requirement by requiring that it be posted wherever employees “perform work that contributes to or furthers the performance of the contract, or work whose omission would impede the contract’s performance.” Examples of this work include employees who are “assuring quality control and security; storing the goods after production; delivering them to the government; hiring, paying, and providing personnel services for the employees engaged in contract-related work; keeping financial and accounting records; performing related office and clerical tasks; and supervising or managing the employees engaged in such tasks.”

Contractors who customarily post notices electronically must post this notice electronically as well. Additionally, if a contractor employs a large number of employees who are not proficient in English, the contractor must post the notice in a language that they can understand.

The National Labor Relations Board has exclusive adjudicatory authority over any disputes involving the substantive provisions of the required notice. Failure to comply with the regulations can result in debarment from federal contracts.

The final regulations can be accessed by clicking here. The required notice can be accessed by clicking here.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

Massachusetts Senate passes bill requiring employers to give time off to victims of domestic violence

May 19th, 2010

Last week the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill that would require employers of 50 or more employees to provide up to 15 days of leave in any 12-month period to an employee if the employee or family member of the employee, is a victim of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault. “Family member” includes spouses, parents, step-parents, children, step-children, siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren; people “in a substantive dating or engagement relationship” who live together; people who have a child in common, even if they are unmarried or do not live together; and people in a guardianship relationship. The employee would be entitled to leave only if the leave is taken to address issues arising out of the domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault in order to seek or obtain a court order of protection, medical attention, counseling, victim services, legal assistance, secure housing, or to appear in court as a witness, attend child custody proceedings, consult with a district attorney or other law enforcement official, or other issues directly related to the domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault.

The bill passed by the Senate would allow employers to give the leave with or without pay, and employers could require employees to use up available sick time or vacation time before using the 15 days provided under the proposed law. Employers also could require employees to provide documentation demonstrating that the employee or a family member has been the victim of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault. Employers covered by the proposed law would be required to notify employees of their right to take leave under the law.

The bill has now moved on to the House of Representatives. It hasn’t yet been scheduled for debate, but it is expected that the House will take action on the bill before the July recess. We will be sure to provide any updates as they occur.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

Worker Misclassification Legislation Looming in Both Houses of Congress

May 2nd, 2010

On April 22, both houses of Congress re-introduced legislation designed to crackdown on the misclassification of workers as independent contractors. Entitled The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, the bill will have a significant impact on employers’ current practices. If enacted, employers will be required to keep records relative to their independent contractors, specifically reflecting their status as such. Employers will also be required to provide written notice to all workers of their status as either an employee or as an independent contractor.

Additionally, the legislation would expand the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provision to workers who have been discriminated against because they have sought to be accurately classified. The legislation also imposes tougher penalties of $1,100 per violation for the first offense and up to $5,000 for repeat or willful violations. Furthermore, employers who misclassify workers thereby violating minimum wage and/or maximum hour provisions of the FLSA could end up paying double the amount of liquidated damages. To ensure that workers are made aware of their rights, the bill mandates the creation of an official Department of Labor “employee rights website.” The website could make filing a claim as simple as clicking on a link and filling out a form.

Under the legislation, more cooperative efforts and the sharing of information between the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service are strongly encouraged. While this bill has not yet been passed into law, employers must be cognizant of the continued focus on and the possible ramifications of worker misclassification.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

Massachusetts Trial Court’s Ruling Breathes New Life into Non-Competition Agreements

April 26th, 2010

While non-competition agreements can be a very useful tool for employers that want to protect their confidential information and maintain a competitive edge, such agreements are generally disfavored by the courts as a restraint on trade and the ability to earn a livelihood, making their overall enforcement quite difficult. A recent Massachusetts trial court decision, however, breathes new life into the enforceability of non-competition agreements.

In this case, Plaintiff, Inner-Tite, filed a lawsuit against former employee William Brozowski seeking to prevent him from working at one of its competitors in accordance with the non-competition and non-disclosure agreement he had signed. Inner-Tite had required its regional sales managers, including Brozowski, to sign such agreements at the time of hire. The agreement itself specifically prevented sales managers from seeking employment with any competitor for a period of two years after their separation, prevented them from disclosing confidential company information to anyone, and prevented them from soliciting any customers of Inner-Tite. Brozowski left Inner-Tite voluntarily in order to work for a competitor company.

The court initially determined that the non-competition agreement was overly broad and, thus, not reasonable as written; however, the court nonetheless decided to enforce the agreement to the extent it deemed reasonable under the circumstances. Since Brozowski was the sole sales manager in his region, since there were only six sales regions in the United States and since Brozowski worked independently, occupying a position of trust and confidence within the company, the court found that it would be reasonable to prevent Brozowski from working at a competitor within his particular sales region for a period of one year, enforcing the agreement to that extent.

In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that it was in the interest of public policy to preserve businesses, especially in this economic climate. “Requiring reasonable enforcement of non-compete and secrecy agreements preserves legitimate business interests and maintains the expectations of the parties, which helps to sustain a business. This results in economic stability, which is clearly in the public interest.” Inner-Tite Corp. v. Brozowski (Kenton-Walker, J.) (Worcester Superior Court, April 12, 2010).

Although this is only a trial court decision, this case is helpful authority for supporting the business-based reasons behind establishing and enforcing non-competition agreements. The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully drafted, narrowly tailored agreements. Agreements that contain a very limited geographic scope and duration are much more likely to be deemed reasonable and, thus, enforceable.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

COBRA Subsidy Extended to May 31

April 16th, 2010

After weeks of debate, late last evening, President Obama signed into law the Continuing Extension Act of 2010, which extends, among other unemployment benefits, the COBRA subsidy to May 31, 2010. Extended twice previously, the subsidy was first slated to expire on February 28, 2010 and then on March 31, 2010.

The law is retroactive so if your business has terminated anyone between March 31 and yesterday, you will need to provide them with notice of this latest extension. As of now, the Department of Labor has not updated its Model Notices to reflect the extension; however, we anticipate that it will do so shortly. With the last extension, the DOL issued a Frequently Asked Questions section that was quite helpful. That too has yet to be updated. The Continuing Extension Act also extends unemployment benefits.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

The Fair Labor Standards Act is Amended to Require Reasonable Break Times for Breastfeeding Moms

March 31st, 2010

Massive amounts of media attention have been paid to health care reform and the key points contained within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; however, various provisions within that nearly one thousand page document have stayed under the radar screen, like the tiny provision amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (”FLSA”).

The FLSA amendment found in 29 U.S.C. 207 (r)(1) requires employers covered under the FLSA to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her infant child. “Reasonable break time,” however, has not been defined. Under the amendment, employers must provide such breaks for up to one year after the child’s birth, but do not need to compensate for any time spent on the break. Employers also must furnish employees with “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from co-workers and the public” for expressing breast milk during the breaks.

Employers of fewer than 50 employees may be excused from providing breaks for breastfeeding, but only if doing so would create an “undue hardship.” Under the new amendment, “undue hardship” is defined as a hardship that causes significant difficulty or expense and is measured by the size, financial resources, nature, or structure of the employer’s business.

Although many states already have their own laws pertaining to expressing breast milk, employers in states that do not, such as Massachusetts, must now make sure they provide reasonable breaks for expressing breast milk and secure a private place for this to occur. Employers that are in states that have these laws in place, like Connecticut and Vermont, must adhere to whichever law is most favorable to the employee.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.

Obama Makes Two Pro-Union Appointments to the NLRB

March 27th, 2010

Today, President Obama appointed two pro-union attorneys, Craig Becker and Mark Pearce, to the National Labor Relations Board. Obama made these appointments unilaterally, using what is known as a recess appointment, which is an appointment made while Congress is not in session and does not require Congress’ assent. Brian Hayes, a third nominee and member of the GOP, was left behind to be voted on by Congress.

These recess appointments do not bode well for employers. Becker, a controversial pro-union advocate, most recently was employed as Associate General Counsel for the Service Employees International Union and prior to that worked as an attorney for the AFL-CIO. Pearce also is a pro-union attorney. With these appointments, the NLRB will now have a 3-1 Democratic majority. Because these appointments were made during a Congressional recess, the terms for these appointees will end in 2011 whereas appointments with Congressional approval last five years.


The information provided at Women in Labor is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. If you have a question about a post or would like to consult with Royal & Klimczuk, LLC about a particular situation, please contact Amy Royal or Kimberly Klimczuk at info@rkesq.com or (413) 586-2288.