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.
Articles Discussing Hours Worked Under The FLSA.
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.
On June 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published its revised fluctuating workweek methodology regulation for calculating overtime in the Federal Register. The new final rule goes into effect on August 7, 2020.
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:
Affirming a district court order dismissing a putative class action, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Taco Bell’s policy of requiring employees to eat employer-discounted meals in the restaurant does not convert the meal period into “on duty” time such that the meal period becomes compensable under California law. Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corporation, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19825 (9th Cir. July 18, 2018).
Executive Summary: The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) issued two opinion letters today, April 12, 2018. One opinion addressed when employers must pay employees for travel time away from their homes and the second dealt with compensability of rest breaks covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Essentially, the DOL stated that employers are not required to pay for travel time where an employee has no regular working hours if the employer uses one of the permissible methods for identifying the employee’s normal working hours in determining whether travel time is compensable. In another opinion, the DOL addressed the issue of FMLA-protected employees who need fifteen-minute breaks every hour. The DOL concluded that such large, frequent break times were non-compensable under both the FLSA and the FMLA because the breaks predominantly benefitted the employee. It noted, however, that these FMLA-protected employees must be compensated for break time provided to all employees, such as two fifteen-minute breaks per day.
Yesterday, the Department of Labor (DOL) under the Trump administration issued its first wage-hour opinion letters. Two of these opinion letters may be of general interest to employers and concern issues of (1) when an employee’s travel time must be compensated as hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and (2) when break time taken by employees for medical reasons (protected by the FMLA) must be compensated under the FLSA.