Articles Discussing Overtime Exemptions Under The FLSA.

The U.S. Supreme Court held today that pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify as “outside salesmen” and, accordingly, are exempt from the overtime requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). See Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (No. 11-204, U.S. June 18, 2012). Importantly, the Court also refused to give controlling deference to the Department of Labor’s (DOL) change of position in interpreting the regulation to exclude these employees, which was first announced in amicus briefs filed in court litigation. The Court noted that where, as here, an agency’s announcement of its interpretation is preceded by a lengthy period of conspicuous inaction, “the potential for unfair surprise is acute.”

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that pharmaceutical representatives are “outside salesmen” exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. (.pdf).

Our employees consider themselves “professionals” and don’t want to be treated as hourly workers. If our employees agree to it, can we still treat them as “exempt” even if they don’t meet all of the requirements under the FLSA or state law?

The Seventh Circuit recently weighed in on whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt under the FLSA in Susan Schaeffer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Company.

Misclassification of employees continues to bring a lot of headaches to employers. I have worked with a wide variety of businesses on this issue – from Fortune 500 to “mom and pop” companies. Each has its own way of doing things in this area and monitoring classification compliance is pretty low on the to-do list.

As we have discussed before, to be considered an exempt executive, administrative, or professional employee, most employees must be paid on a “salary basis,” meaning that they receive a fixed salary for each workweek regardless of the number of hours worked or the quality or quantity of work performed. In a ruling that at first blush seems fairly obvious, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that actually paying an employee’s salary is a necessary condition to meeting this standard. Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchies, LLC.

On April 3, 2012, a federal district court in South Carolina determined that two Dollar General store managers met the executive exemption from overtime pay under the FLSA. Gooden v. Dolgencorp and Thomas v. Dolgencorp. Granting summary judgment to Dolgencorp, the court held that Gooden’s and Thomas’s primary duties were managerial in nature based upon the facts in these cases.

I read the stories every day: some small business, often a local restaurant or a similar “mom and pop” operation, gets sued or tagged by the Department of Labor for failing to pay minimum wages and overtime to employees. Here’s just one example.

One of our salaried exempt employees appears to have violated our sexual harassment policy. We would like to suspend him without pay for 3 days. Is this allowed under the FLSA?

Imagine you are the personal assistant for the world’s most famous artist, Lady Gaga. You have the opportunity to travel the world, meet famous people and watch your boss hit the button to drop the “ball” in Times Square on New Years Eve. What could be better? Well, apparently, being paid overtime.

In a previous post in August, I questioned whether the pharmaceutical companies were losing the exemption battle as it related to pharmaceutical sales representatives and the outside sales exemption.

My last blog entry on travel time only touched on one issue that may arise as we see more employees being asked to take on additional responsibilities and assignments in lieu of hiring new personnel. Indeed, consolidation of jobs or responsibilities can lead to a number of other potential wage and hour issues that can have a significant impact on employers. One such issue arises when an exempt employee takes on additional jobs or duties that are non-exempt. How should an employee be treated for overtime purposes if working both exempt and non-exempt positions?

Another in our series of answers to questions from our September 28 webinar on wage and hour law in higher education:

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about an initiative by the U.S. Department of Labor, IRS and various state agencies to launch a coordinated crack-down on employers who misclassify employees as independent contractors. Recently, a U.S. District Court in Ohio issued a ruling that nicely illustrates the problem of misclassifcation and the potential liabilities that employers can face as a result.

My Company anticipates embarking on a big project this fall that will have extreme importance to the Company’s future and require extra hours at the office. The Company wants to give a little extra pay to employees who work on this important project. A number of these employees are classified as exempt. May the Company provide extra compensation to exempt employees for their work on this project?