Total Articles: 6
Ogletree Deakins • June 22, 2016
The requirements and processes applicable to employers handling garnishments are primarily governed by state law—meaning that multi-state employers need to be aware of the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) in addition to the garnishment requirements in all states. Complicating matters further, is the fact that state legislatures frequently tweak garnishment requirements and processes. This two part-series covers the changes to the garnishment laws in Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, California, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The first installment covered the substantial revisions to Michigan’s and Georgia’s laws. Part two covers Tennessee’s clarified law, in addition to changes to California’s, South Dakota’s, and West Virginia’s laws.
Ogletree Deakins • June 18, 2015
In what is becoming oft-cited language, U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York recently stated regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act that, development for many low-wage workers. The same is true for their lawyers. The danger to workers from underpayment by their employers is clear. The danger of overpaying their lawyers is more subtle. Fujiwara v. Sushi Yasuda, 58 F. Supp. 3d 424, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (emphasis added).
Ogletree Deakins • August 28, 2013
Payroll cards are having a moment. Recent articles in The New York Times, USA Today, and ABCNews.com have all highlighted the growing trend of employers paying wages to their employees via debit card. In addition, several U.S. senators recently asked federal agencies, in a strongly worded letter, to issue guidance regarding this pay practice. What, then, are payroll cards—and, more importantly, should employers use them?
Fisher Phillips • July 19, 2013
A recent decision by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) is a reminder that individual business owners and management members can face claims of personal liability for federal Fair Labor Standards Act violations. In Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, the court found that a supermarket company's owner, chairman, and CEO was an "employer" within the FLSA's meaning and was therefore personally liable for millions in FLSA collective-action liability. The court so concluded even while acknowledging that there was no evidence that the owner himself either was responsible for the FLSA violations or ever directly managed or interacted with the plaintiffs.
Ogletree Deakins • April 17, 2013
On April 16, 2013, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for a 5-4 majority, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a collective action brought by a worker under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was properly dismissed because the worker’s suit was moot and no longer justiciable when she failed to accept an offer of judgment from her employer. According to the Court, "the worker had no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness." Thus, the Court ruled that "the mere presence of collective-action allegations in the complaint cannot save the suit from mootness once the individual claim is satisfied." Genesis Healthcare Corp. et al. v. Symczyk, No. 11–1059, U.S. Supreme Court (April 16, 2013).
Fisher Phillips • October 28, 2010
Latest reports suggest that the already-anemic economy has stalled in recent months. And the hard times seem to be fueling a continued wave of lawsuits by current and former employees over issues like minimum wages and overtime. A number of these lawsuits seek to hold certain individuals personally responsible for claims for unpaid wages under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.