Articles Discussing Hours Worked Under The FLSA.

By: Time Spent Traveling To and Taking Pre-Employment Drug Test Is Not Compensable

Earlier this week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal held in Johnson v. WinCo Foods LLC, that time spent traveling to and taking a pre-employment drug test is not compensable where the drug test was a pre-condition of

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued Fact Sheet #84 (available here) addressing the compensability of time spent undergoing COVID-19 health screenings, testing, and vaccinations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Fact Sheet addresses how the OSHA Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) factors into the DOL’s analysis of whether such time is compensable under the FLSA. The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the ETS from going into effect, determining that OSHA likely lacked the authority to impose the ETS.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on January 24, 2022 removed, without explanation, from its website Fact Sheet #84 addressing the compensability of time spent undergoing COVID-19 health screenings, testing, and vaccinations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Presumably, the DOL reconsidered its guidance following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to stay the OSHA Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). This action by the DOL reflects the shifting nature of positions taken by government agencies addressing COVID-19 issues and litigation developments. 

As the United States gradually emerges from the pandemic, employers (and especially those in the tech sector whose workforces can easily work remotely) are looking for ways to help frazzled and burned-out employees. In addition, many employees are seeking opportunities to preserve the flexibility they gained during pandemic remote-work arrangements.

A security company did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) when, under its meal-period policy, it automatically deducted an hour of pay from its security officers on certain flights, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held. Dean v. Akal Security, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 18621 (5th

Upholding the trial court’s dismissal of an FLSA collective action, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated that an employee’s commute time is compensable only when the commute is “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s job duties. Bennett v. McDermott Int’l, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 10948 (5th Cir. Apr.

Continuing its early pattern of reversing positions adopted during the former administration, on February 19, 2021 the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) withdrew two more Opinion Letters. The first, Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6, addressed whether service providers for a virtual market company were properly

Continuing the practice it reinstituted during the current administration, on August 31, 2020 the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage Hour Division (WHD) issued four new Opinion Letters, addressing a variety of topics. That brings the total to 57 Opinion Letters issued since 2018, including the re-publication of 17 Opinion

On August 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) released opinion letter FLSA2020-14.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued an opinion letter on August 31, 2020 addressing whether the fluctuating workweek method of compensation may be used when an employee’s weekly hours fluctuate only above and not below 40 hours per week. The WHD concluded there is no requirement, under the FLSA or its interpreting regulations and guidance, that an employee’s hours worked fluctuate below 40 hours per week when utilizing the fluctuating workweek method for determining overtime compensation.

This week, the federal Department of Labor (DOL) issued a field assistance bulletin explaining employers’ obligations when it comes to tracking compensable hours worked by non-exempt employees who are teleworking during the pandemic. The guidance provides helpful reminders for employers on this subject.

Does an employer’s business qualify as a “retail or service establishment” for the purpose of satisfying the exemption requirements of section 207(i) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act?  The answer to this question might have just changed based on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) recent regulatory action. 

Rejecting employer Timberline South’s argument, among others, that FLSA coverage did not apply because all of its timber harvesting occurred only within one state, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded that the commuting and meal break times should not have been included in the trial court’s calculation of overtime damages. Secretary of Labor v. Timberline South, LLC, 920 F.3d 1065 (6th Cir. 2019). The Sixth Circuit includes the federal courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In Reinig v. RBS Citizens, N.A.,1 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a district court’s decision certifying a class of mortgage loan officers (“MLOs”) who claimed they were unlawfully denied overtime pay for work performed off-the-clock. This precedential decision is significant for three reasons: