Posts Tagged ‘FLSA’

Federal court says Massachusetts wage/hour laws may apply to employees who perform work in other states

Wednesday, June 16th, 2010

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has held that a Massachusetts company may be liable under the Massachusetts Wage Act for failing to pay overtime to an employee, even though that employee worked in the company’s Connecticut facility.

The Plaintiff, James Gonyou, worked as a technician and, later, a technician supervisor for Tri-Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc., a Massachusetts telecommunications company that provides tech services throughout New England. On January 5, 2009, Gonyou became a technician supervisor at Tri-Wire’s Danbury, Connecticut facility. On December 14, 2009, Gonyou filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts against Tri-Wire claiming that he had worked approximately 350 hours of overtime between January and July of 2009 and that Tri-Wire had not paid him overtime pay for those hours. Gonyou claimed that Tri-Wire’s failure to pay overtime violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Tri-Wire filed a motion to dismiss Gonyou’s claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act, arguing that the Massachusetts Wage Act did not apply because Gonyou worked in Connecticut. The court, disagreed, however, noting that the language of the Massachusetts Wage Act refers to the location of the employer, not the employee:

no employer in the commonwealth shall employ any of his employees in an occupation…for a work week longer than forty hours, unless such employee receives compensation for his employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he is employed.

(emphasis added.)

The court decided that this language would be interpreted most reasonably to apply to any Massachusetts corporation that employs individuals both in Massachusetts and elsewhere, and the court did not find that applying Massachusetts law in this situation would be unfair to Tri-Wire.  Accordingly, the court allowed Gonyou to proceed with his Massachusetts overtime claims against Tri-Wire.  Gonyou v. Tri-Wire Engineering Solutions, Inc., D. Mass., 2010.

Of course, even if the court had dismissed Gonyou’s Massachusetts overtime claims, Gonyou still could be entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA; so why bother dismissing the Massachusetts claims?  Because, unlike the FLSA, employers who are found to have violated the Massachusetts Wage Act are automatically required to pay triple damages to employees who are owed overtime or other wages.  The district court’s decision suggests that Massachusetts employers who make wage payment errors will be forced to pay triple damages for those errors, even if those errors were made with respect to employees who don’t work in Massachusetts.

Remember that the DOL is Cracking Down on Unpaid Summer Internships

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

Wednesday, 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.

Wage War on the Wage Hour Class Action Before Getting Slammed

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

$40 million. $14 million. These figures represent only two examples of the massive expense wage/hour class actions can be for employers. And, these two figures only represent the settlement amounts for these cases and do not account for the time and costs associated with defending them. In light of that, these two figures should serve as two good reasons why employers need to be proactive when it comes to wage/hour issues. Although employers can never stop disgruntled employees from waging wage/hour or other claims against them, they can take various steps to wage war on them by putting themselves in the best defensive posture that they can be in. And, one good way to do that is through a wage-hour audit.

Unfortunately for employers, wage/hour class action lawsuits have become increasingly popular over the last ten years and continue to be on the rise around the country. No employer is immune from them, not even the Salvation Army. In fact, a class of 28,000 employees filed a wage/hour lawsuit against the Salvation Army in California claiming that their former employer denied them meal breaks and did not pay them overtime.  The case was ultimately settled for $12 million in August 2009.

The two multimillion figures listed above for $14 and $40 million both arose out Massachusetts. Today, the Boston Globe proudly boasted on its front page: “Wal-Mart will pay $40m to Workers.”  To access the Globe’s article, click here.

Within the article, the Globe also noted that Lenox, Massachusetts employer Canyon Ranch paid out $14 million as part of a wage/hour settlement with its employees last year. With regard to the Wal-Mart class action, the case itself was filed back in 2001 and, now, over eight years later, has just been resolved. With a class of about 67,000 employees and, similar to the Salvation Army class action case, the employees asserted that Wal-Mart violated wage/hour law by denying them meal breaks, failing to pay them overtime and otherwise not paying them for all of the hours they worked.

What the Globe barely acknowledges is that Wal-Mart’s decision to settle was very likely for business reasons due to mounting litigation costs in a case with a class of 67,000+ plaintiffs and was not a decision that implied any liability. In fact, the article fails to explore the possibility of former employees jumping on the lawsuit bandwagon hoping for a lottery win at the end of the day.

As employers, we are all too aware of that mentality, which is why it becomes critical to reduce the risk of employment-related lawsuits. Many of these wage/hour class action cases have repeated themes, the most popular ones being as follows: failure to provide meal breaks, failure to pay overtime; failure to pay for “off the clock” time; and failure to pay tips.

Because wage/hour litigation continues to be on the rise and is very costly to defend, especially in Massachusetts due to the triple damages’ statute, employers should have their employment law counsel conduct a wage/hour audit to ensure that workers are properly classified, that overtime is properly calculated, that there are not improper deductions taken out of an employee’s pay and that supervisors and managers are being properly trained.