|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Staffing Companies Face Potential Exposure for Interview Time.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - November 05, 2009 In a putative class action pending in the federal court for the Northern District of California, Sullivan v. Kelly Services, Inc. (Case No. C 08-3893 CW), Judge Claudia Wilken, ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, has held that the time spent interviewing by a Kelly Services employee seeking temporary work assignments with Kelly Services' clients is compensable under California law. However, Judge Wilken also ruled that the time spent preparing for and commuting to the client interviews was not compensable, nor was Kelly Services required to reimburse the employees for expenses incurred in attending the interviews. Report Link Hidden Costs: Non-Exempt Employees' Class Action Complaints for Time Spent on Work-Related Messages.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 21, 2009 Employers providing personal data assistants (“PDAs”), such as BlackBerries, as well as cell phones and pagers, to non-exempt employees may face unexpected costs: liability for wages and overtime. A recent increase in complaints filed on behalf of non-exempt workers illustrates potential risks for employers who provide PDAs to workers. The complaints seek wages and overtime pay for workers’ time spent reviewing and responding to text messages, e-mails and other communications received through company-issued PDAs. Report Link Commuting Time Not Compensable, But Off-the-Clock Work is Another Question, Ninth Circuit Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 08, 2009 An automotive employee was not entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act or California law for commuting time and time spent on preliminary activities, the federal appeals court in San Francisco held in a class action case. However, the question of the compensability of employees’ post-shift activity of transmitting required daily data is remanded to the district court for trial. Report Link Working Families Flexibility Act.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - August 13, 2009 On March 3, 2009, Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), George Miller (D-CA), and John Lewis (D-GA) introduced the “Working Families Flexibility Act” (H.R. 1274). The Act would protect from retaliation and discrimination, employees who request flexible work schedules. The legislation was created in an effort to help employees balance the demands of both work and family. Report Link U.S. Department of Labor Update: Time Spent After Hours In Online Training Must Be Paid.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - May 05, 2009 Must an employer pay its employee wages for after-hours time spent attending training? Yes, under some circumstances, according to the U.S. Department of Labor and California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. Report Link An Update on Furloughs and Reduced Hours: New Guidance on Cost-Cutting Strategies Other than Layoffs.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - April 20, 2009 Last December, as the recession was beginning to deepen, Littler published an Insight, Furloughs and Reduced Hours: Cost-Cutting Strategies Other Than Layoffs, discussing several alternatives to layoffs, particularly mandatory furloughs of exempt employees, mandatory use of vacation/PTO during furloughs, and reduced workweeks, based on the limited legal precedent available at that time on these subjects. Recently, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued three opinion letters that address some of these alternatives. This Insight is an update to the December 2008 Insight and provides the latest legal analysis. Report Link Do After-Hours Emails Create Employer Wage Liability?Barker Olmsted & Barnier - March 05, 2009 Wage and hour class actions have been built upon seemingly minor issues. How about this one: Should non-exempt employees be paid for time spent after hours reviewing business-related emails on their PDAs? Report Link Wage & Hour Update: Failure To Pay Travel Expenses Costs Starbucks Millions.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - February 04, 2009 A recent class action brought by Starbucks employees serves as a reminder to employers on the topic of travel expenses. The federal court employee class action alleged that Starbucks failed to reimburse employees for their travel expenses. Employers should take steps to avoid the same fate. Report Link Repayment Agreement Passes Muster, But Withholding Paycheck Violates FLSA, State Appeals Court Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 03, 2008 The City of Oakland violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by withholding a former police officer’s final paycheck to cover part of his training costs, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. City of Oakland v. Hassey, No. A116360 (Cal. Ct. App. June 17, 2008). The court also ruled that an agreement for reimbursement of training costs was lawful under the FLSA. Report Link DOL Provides Guidance Regarding Hours Worked Under FLSA.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 16, 2008 The U.S. Department of Labor has clarified compensable work time under the Fair Labor Standards Act in regard to meal breaks, straight time, and overtime. In an opinion letter dated May 15, 2008, the Department reached the following conclusions: Report Link Federal Court Rejects Rule Permitting 11-Hour Driving Day for Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators.Ford & Harrison LLP - July 31, 2007 A federal appeals court has overturned two provisions of the federal rule governing commercial motor vehicle operators’ hours of service, finding that the agency that issued the regulations failed to adequately justify them. Report Link Eleventh Circuit Finds Time Spent Traveling From Parking Lot and Clearing Security is not Compensable.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 06, 2007 In a case handled by Ford & Harrison attorney Andrew Hament, the Eleventh Circuit has held that the time employees spend at a security checkpoint and time spent on employer-provided transportation from a remote parking lot to their work site is not compensable work time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Report Link Donning/Doffing Case Illustrates Potential Opportunities and Pitfalls for Unionized Employers.Ford & Harrison LLP - May 16, 2007 Wage and hour lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are becoming increasingly fertile ground for litigation. Why is that? The FLSA provides that plaintiffs’ lawyers will receive attorney fees if their suits are successful. Report Link Must employers pay workers to study English?Ogletree Deakins - September 11, 2006 Time employees voluntarily studying outside work hours not compensable. Report Link Second Circuit Rejects Expanding Compensable Work Day to Include Duties Not Integral to Principal Work Activities.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 08, 2006 The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a collective action lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against current and former operators of a nuclear power facility located in New York seeking compensation for certain required activities before and after the work day. In Gorman v. The Consolidated Edison Corp. and Gorman v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Nos. 05-6546-cv and 06-2241-cv, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12450 (2d Cir. May 30, 2007), the Court decided the consolidated appeal of two separate District Court rulings which had dismissed claims by employees in favor of the employers. Report Link Donning, Doffing, Walking And Waiting: Paid Or Unpaid Time?Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - January 19, 2006 Test your knowledge on the following wage payment questions. Report Link Must I compensate employees for the time spent walking from a changing room to a production area? (pdf)Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - January 09, 2006 In a November 8, 2005,
consolidated opinion, the U.S.
Supreme Court unanimously held
that employers must pay plant
workers for the time it takes to "don
or doff" protective gear and walk to
work stations. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Grants Employees More Compensable Time (pdf).Vedder Price - January 06, 2006 On November 8, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously held in consolidated cases (IBP, Inc. v.
Alvarez, No. 03-1328, and Tum v. Barber Foods,
No. 04-66) that time spent by employees walking from a
changing area to the production area is compensable
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (as amended by the
Portal-to-Portal Act) when it follows the donning of
required protective gear. Report Link Justices Tackle "Walking, Working & Wages" (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - December 16, 2005 The U.S. Supreme Court began its
2005-2006 term by hearing a pair of
class action employment lawsuits raising
compensation issues for workers
who are required to put on and take off
protective gear before starting their
work shift. A little more than a month
later, in one of the first decisions of the
term, the high court issued its ruling
in these cases. The result has been generally
perceived as a victory for workers.
This decision raises significant
issues for employers with these types
of workers – and raises difficult questions
for many other companies. IBP,
Inc. v. Alvarez (No. 03-1238) and Tum v.
Barber Foods, Inc. (No. 04-66), U.S. Supreme
Court (November 8, 2005). Report Link To Pay or Not to Pay: Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent Traveling To And From Work Areas to "Don and Doff" Protective Gear Is Compensable.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 02, 2005 In a recent consolidated opinion, IBP, Inc., v. Alvarez, No. 03-1238, and Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc., No. 04-66 (Nov. 8, 2005), a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that employees must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, for time spent walking from their employer's locker room to the work floor after "donning," or putting on, unique protective gear, as well as time spent waiting to "doff," or take off, unique protective gear. The Court also held that time spent waiting to don protective gear is excluded from FLSA coverage by the Portal-to-Portal Act, and that employers are not required to compensate employees for that waiting time. Report Link Supreme Court Decision Expands The Compensable Workday for Many Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 15, 2005 In what is likely to be the most significant labor and employment law decision in this term, the U. S. Supreme Court has overturned long held assumptions concerning the scope of the compensable workday for employees who are required to wear protective garments or gear to perform their jobs. On November 8, 2005, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. _____ (2005), Docket Nos. 03-1238 and 04-66, a case involving the interpretation of work time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court concluded that the donning of protective gear prior to an employee's shift commences the workday, and that time spent walking to employees' workstations is encompassed within the compensable workday. Report Link National Alert -- When Walking And Wages Collide (pdf).Ogletree Deakins - November 10, 2005 The first dispute heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this term involved a pair of class action
employment lawsuits raising compensation issues for workers who are required to wear protective gear. Today, the high court issued its ruling in these cases, which was generally in favor of the workers. For employers with these types of workers, this stands to dramatically affect their workplace. Report Link Supreme Court to Decide Cases with Potential to Affect Payroll Practices of Most Employers.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 24, 2005 The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will review two cases involving the parameters of the compensable workday under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Report Link Labor Department Revises Position on Compensability of Sleep Time for Group Home Employees.Jackson Lewis LLP - December 10, 2004 In a recent opinion letter, the United States Department of Labor revised its position regarding the compensability of sleep time for group home employees who live on the premises and who are required to remain on the premises during sleep time.
|
Employment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds