By: Alexander Passantino

The Department of Labor issued its Fall 2018 regulatory agenda, and the Wage & Hour Division is front and center. New to the agenda is a proposed rule on joint employment under the FLSA. Acknowledging that its regulations have not been updated in 60 years and no longer reflect the realities of the workplace, WHD is proposing changes “intended to provide clarity to the regulated community and thereby enhance compliance. WHD also “believes the proposed changes will help to provide more uniform standards nationwide.” A proposed rule is expected in December.

Remaining on the agenda are WHD’s proposals to (1) update the salary level required for the FLSA exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees and (2) clarify, update, and define basic rate and regular rate requirements. The salary level proposal is expected in March 2019, and the regular rate proposal is expected December 2018.

It’s shaping up to be an incredibly busy couple of months at WHD. We’ll update you as more information becomes available.

By: John Yslas

Arbitration agreement resolution of commercial disputes on a desk.

Seyfarth Synopsis: In vetoing the California Legislature’s attempt to criminalize arbitration agreements (AB 3080), Governor Brown displayed common sense and the legal learning provided by recent U.S. Supreme Court authority.

Haven’t high courts already upheld mandatory arbitration agreements?

Yes, they have. The California and U.S. Supreme Courts have repeatedly ruled that employers may require employees to enter valid arbitration agreements (waiving the right to judge and jury trial). The most recent vindication of arbitration agreements was the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2018 decision in Epic Systems, which upheld the enforceability of an arbitration agreement that waived participation in class waivers, against an argument that such a waiver violated employee rights to concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Hasn’t the California Legislature got the message?

Apparently not yet. The Legislature has tried again and again to outlaw arbitration agreements in ever more inventive ways, notwithstanding the clear authority to the contrary. Governor Brown, meanwhile, has learned that these efforts will not pass constitutional muster. In 2014, Governor Brown signed into law AB 2617, which outlawed mandatory arbitrations for goods and services; but a March 2018 appellate decision held that the law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Meanwhile, in 2015, Governor Brown vetoed AB 465, which would have outlawed mandatory arbitration as a condition of employment. In doing so, Governor Brown noted that bans on arbitration have been consistently struck down as violating the FAA, and that California courts have made arbitrations more employee-friendly by requiring certain protections (neutral arbitrator, adequate discovery, no limit on damages or remedies, written decision subject to some review, cost limits). He even questioned whether arbitration is really less fair than traditional litigation for employees.

While Governor Brown’s learning curve has progressed, the California Legislature’s has regressed, as evidenced by AB 3080

In August 2018—just three months after the Epic Systems decision—the Legislature passed AB 3080, which banned mandatory arbitration agreements, which outlawed “opt-out” provisions (allowing employees to refuse to enter into arbitration agreements), and which even criminalized employer conduct to implement such an agreement. The legislative committee analyses argued that there must be “consent and fairness” in entering into an agreement, that the Supreme Court “has never ruled that the FAA applies in the absence of a valid agreement,” that the FAA would not preempt AB 3080 because it “regulates behavior prior to an agreement being reach[ed],” and that AB 3080 does not “outright ban or invalidate arbitration agreements.”

The apoplectic reaction to the outrage that was AB 3080

The employer community reacted strongly to AB 3080. Leading law firms urged Governor Brown to veto AB 3080. They noted that the proponents were making old, tired arguments that the U.S. and California Supreme Courts have rejected. They protested the disingenuousness of saying that arbitration agreements could not be voluntary even where employees have the right to opt out. They reminded Governor Brown of his veto of AB 465 in 2015.

Most emphatically, they pointed out that criminalizing employer conduct that the FAA so clearly protects could coerce fearful employers into abandoning arbitration agreements until the courts clearly rule AB 3080 unconstitutional. In this respect the Legislature, ironically, was engaging in something that a private party could not do without engaging in an unfair business practice. After all, an unfair business practice occurs when a party inserts an obviously unlawful provision into a contract, aiming to intimidate the other party into abiding by the unlawful provision.

Governor Brown’s veto and what’s next

On September 30, 2018, Governor Brown vetoed AB 3080. His accompanying letter rejected the Legislature’s argument that AB 3080 only regulates behavior prior to an agreement being reached. The Governor pointed out that in a 2017 Supreme Court decision, even Justice Kagan (“an appointee of President Obama”) acknowledged that the FAA “cares not only about the ‘enforcement’ of arbitration agreements, but also about their initial ‘valid[ity].’ ” Governor Brown emphatically stated that AB 3080 “plainly violates federal law.”

So what does all this mean? The lesson is that our systems of checks and balances can still work, where a governor learns not to permit a legislature to flout federal law. Will this trend continue as our great state ushers in a new governor in 2019? Stay tuned.

Webinar Reminder

Don’t forget to sign up and attend our complimentary webinar on October 10, 2018 for a discussion of all of the newly-enacted employment-related laws, and implications for employers.

By Abigail Cahak and Noah Finkel

Seyfarth Synopsis: In an en banc decision, the Ninth Circuit reverses its prior panel opinion rejecting the DOL’s interpretation of FLSA regulations on use of the tip credit to pay regularly tipped employees, finding that the interpretation is consistent with the FLSA regulations.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc issued a decision reversing a prior panel opinion from the court that rejected the Department of Labor’s interpretation of FLSA regulations on the use of the tip credit when paying regularly tipped employees. The ruling joins other circuits, other than the Eleventh, that explicitly or implicitly accept the DOL guidance. That DOL guidance, however, can be withdrawn by the DOL at any time.

Under the FLSA regulations, an individual employed in dual occupations–one tipped and one not–cannot be paid using the tip credit for hours worked in the non-tipped occupation. The regulations clarify, however, that “[s]uch a situation is distinguishable from that of a waitress who spends part of her time cleaning and setting tables, toasting bread, making coffee[,] and occasionally washing dishes or glasses. . . . Such related duties in an occupation that is a tipped occupation need not by themselves be directed toward producing tips.” Yet, current DOL guidance interpreting the regulations, contained first in the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook and set forth in an amicus brief, imposes time and duty-based limitations not present in the regulations themselves: the tip credit may not be used if an employee spends over 20% of hours in a workweek performing duties related to the tipped occupation but not themselves tip-generating. The guidance provides that an employer also may not take the tip credit for time spent on duties not related to the tipped occupation because such an employee is “effectively employed in dual jobs.” The DOL’s guidance has previously been followed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Fast v. Applebee’s International, Inc. and several lower courts. (We blogged about the Fast decision here.) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, adopting a decision from the Southern District of Florida, has been the other circuit to refuse to follow the Field Operations Handbook’s guidance, albeit without a detailed discussion of deference to administrative agencies.

In September 2017, a panel of the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Marsh v. J. Alexander’s, addressing a number of actions brought by servers and bartenders who alleged that their employers improperly used the tip credit. Relying on the DOL guidance in the Field Operations Handbook, the plaintiffs asserted that their non-tip generating duties took up more than 20% of their work hours, that they were employed in dual occupations, and that they were thus owed the regular minimum wage for that time. The Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook was both inconsistent with the FLSA regulations and attempted to create a de facto new regulation such that it did not merit Auer deference. It explicitly rejected the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning in Fast. The plaintiffs shortly thereafter filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was granted in February 2018.

On September 18, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision reversing its prior holding. It concluded that, like the statute, the FLSA regulations do not define “related duties” or “occupation,” but suggest that the “DOL likely intended to tie a person’s occupation to her duties.” And, although they define those duties in temporal terms like “occasionally,” the regulations leave undefined the point at which the “transformation” from “occasionally” to a “dual occupation” occurs. According to the Ninth Circuit, the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook therefore addresses these ambiguities by defining “related duties,” imposing a 20% threshold for them, and “mak[ing] explicit the regulations suggestion that occupations are defined by their tasks.” In so holding, the Ninth Circuit expressly realigned itself with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Fast, leaving the Eleventh Circuit the only one to reject the 20% rule in a brief 2008 decision.

The Ninth Circuit’s reversal is relatively unsurprising given its often employee-friendly rulings. It will also likely embolden plaintiffs’ counsel who have largely driven tip credit litigation premised on the interpretive guidance’s 20% rule. This trend has forced many restaurant and hospitality industry clients to choose between asking servers and bartenders to track their tasks down to the minute, or risk defending a collective action lawsuit based solely on plaintiffs’ testimony that they spent excessive amounts of time on non-tip producing tasks.

Hospitality employers are left with two potential avenues for relief. First, it is possible that the Supreme Court could grant cert in this case. Though the only circuit court to reject the 20% guidance is the Eleventh Circuit, and in an opinion that does not squarely discuss deference to the DOL, at least four justices on the Court may be interested in reviewing a case that grants considerable power to an administrative agency.

Second, and in what could provide immediate relief to restaurant employers, the DOL’s Wage-Hour Division simply could withdraw and revise its Field Operations Handbook guidance setting for the 20% rule. A rule created by an agency without notice and comment rulemaking can be killed without notice and comment rulemaking. The 20% rule is unworkable and breeds litigation, and the DOL could withdraw it and engage in listening sessions and notice and comment rulemaking to generate a more sensible way to ensure that employers pay tipped employees in a fair manner without subjecting them to an impracticable division between tip-producing and non-tip-producing work.

For now, however, hospitality employers should assume the 20% rule is one to be followed and should consult with counsel on ways to minimize so-called “side work” by tipped employees and to reduce exposure to difficult to defend collective and class actions that claim that tipped employees spend more than 20% of their time on work that is not related to tipped duties.

By: Howard M. Wexler and Vlada Feldman

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second Circuit’s recent rulings in Munoz-Gonzalez v. D.L.C. Limousine Service, Inc. and Flood v. Just Energy Marketing Corp. further demonstrate the impact of the Supreme Court’s holding in Navarro, et al. v. Encino Motorcars, LLC as it pertains to FLSA exemptions by rejecting the traditional “narrow construction” approach in favor of a “fair interpretation.” 

We previously wrote about how the Supreme Court put the brakes on the outdated view that FLSA exemptions should be “construed narrowly” in Navarro, et al. v. Encino Motorcars, LLC.   This past week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued two decisions finding two different categories of workers exempt under the FLSA based on a fair (rather than a narrow) interpretation of FLSA exemptions, as the Supreme Court held is the correct approach.

Stalling Out in Munoz-Gonzalez v. D.L.C. Limousine Service, Inc.

In Munoz-Gonzalez v. D.L.C. Limousine Service, Inc. a group of limo drivers argued that DLC, a “chauffeured car service” violated the FLSA by not compensating them for the overtime hours they worked.  When the district court granted summary judgment in favor of DLC, Munoz-Gonzalez appealed arguing that DLC was an “airport limousine service” and therefore did not qualify for the taxicab exemption.

On the second lap around the racetrack, Munoz-Gonzalez stalled out once again.  In determining whether the taxicab exemption was applicable, the Second Circuit drove straight through the tracks made by the Supreme Court in Encino Motorcars.  The court inspected the ordinary meaning of the word “taxicab”  and found that a “taxicab” is “(1) a chauffeured passenger vehicle; (2) available for hire by individual members of the general public; (3) that has no fixed schedule, fixed route, or fixed termini” and therefore DLC qualified for the exemption and the drivers were not entitled to overtime pay.

Notably, in affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of DLC, the Second Circuit rejected Munoz-Gonzalez’s admonition to construe the FLSA narrowly.  Instead, the opinion cited Encino Motorcars holding that FLSA exemptions should be construed “‘fair[ly]’ . . . with full attention to the text” instead of in favor of the plaintiff.  In the words of the Second Circuit: “a taxicab is a taxicab is a taxicab.”

Hard Knock Life for Flood v. Just Energy Marketing Corp.

In Flood v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., the Second Circuit answered Plaintiff Flood’s door knock but ultimately rejected his sales pitch.  Kevin Flood, a door-to-door salesman, sued his employer alleging that the company violated the FLSA by failing to pay him and the class that he hoped to represent overtime for the weeks that they worked in excess of forty hours.  The district court bought into the employer’s argument that Flood was not entitled to overtime pay based on the “outside salesman” exemption, 29 U.S.C. § 213 (a)(1).  On appeal, the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling and rejected Flood’s argument after quoting Flood’s own statement: “sales is ‘what I do.’”

The Second Circuit once again reiterated that although “[u]ntil recently, it was a rule of statutory interpretation [to] . . . narrowly construe an exemption to the FLSA in order to effectuate the statute’s remedial purpose,” the Supreme Court rejected that view in Encino Motorcars because “exemptions under the FLSA are ‘as much a part of the FLSA’s purpose as the overtime-pay requirement.’”

A Shifting Tide

Both cases can be viewed as lighthouses signaling a tide shift in FLSA interpretation based on Encino Motorcars and the continued banishment of the “construe narrowly” canon of construction some courts previously used in making exempt status determinations.

By: Alexander J. Passantino

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Employees on certain government contracts must be paid in accordance with the requirements of a 2014 Executive Order on Minimum Wage.  Effective January 1, 2019, the minimum wage for covered workers is $10.60 per hour, with a minimum direct wage of $7.40 per hour for tipped employees.

In 2014, President Obama issued an Executive Order establishing a minimum wage for certain federal contractor employees, and requiring that the minimum wage be adjusted on an annual basis.  That Executive Order continues to be in effect, and, in the September 4, 2018 Federal Register, the Department of Labor’s Wage & Hour Division announced that the wage rate will increase to $10.60 per hour. The minimum cash wage for covered tipped employees will increase to $7.40 per hour.

Workers performing on or in connection with covered contracts must be paid these new rates beginning January 1, 2019. We discussed many of the applicable definitions and coverage issues in our prior coverage.

By: Alexander J. Passantino

Remember that time when the Wage & Hour Division published a final rule increasing the minimum salary level for the white-collar exemptions to $47,476 per year?  And then a court enjoined the rule from going forward?  And then the whole thing got put on hold with the change in Administration?

Apparently, so does WHD!

After last year’s Request for Information, we’ve been expecting WHD to move the ball forward with a new proposal.  According to the most recent regulatory agenda, however, that is not slated until January 2019.

If that seems too far away for your next Part 541 fix , WHD has you covered!!!  WHD just announced a series of listening sessions, providing the regulatory community with still more opportunities to let it know what employers (and employees) are thinking.  If you have strong feelings about the white-collar exemptions, please register for the tour location closest to your city:  Atlanta (9/7), Seattle (9/11), Kansas City (9/13), Denver (9/14), and Providence (9/24).

WHD will use the information gathered during these meetings—as well as last year’s RFI—to help inform its views on its new proposal next year.  In the meantime, we’ll keep you posted on any additional developments.

By: Colleen M. Regan

Seyfarth Summary: On July 12, 2018, the California Supreme Court agreed to address questions posed by the Ninth Circuit about whether California Labor Code provisions apply to an out-of-state employer whose employees work part of their time in California. Nationwide employers with employees jetting in to work temporarily in California need to return their seats to an upright position and follow this developing story.

Is your business flying high in the current economy? Profits reaching new altitudes? Maybe you have employees residing in one state while working in another. If some work occasionally in California, prepare to fasten your seatbelts for a potentially rough landing. Even if your employees work in California only intermittently (think partial days), and even if your company is not headquartered in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court may soon bring you down to earth.

Background

Traditionally, employers in paying their employees have applied the wage and hour law of the state where the employee sides or most often works, even if the employee occasionally works in another state. In California, however, the rules are peculiar.

In a 2011 decision, Sullivan v. Oracle, the California Supreme Court held that non-California residents working in California for a California-based employer were subject to California daily overtime laws if they performed their in-state work for whole days. Oracle left employers up in the air as to whether California law would apply in other contexts, such as (a) when non-California residents work partial days of work in California, (b) when the employees worked for non-California based employers, or (c) when the wage and hour provisions at issue were something other than the cal-peculiar rules on daily overtime.

The Certified Questions

Which brings us to the current Ninth Circuit cases. Specifically, in three airline cases raising California issues in federal court (two cases against United Airlines, one against Delta), the Ninth Circuit requested the California Supreme Court to address five questions, paraphrased below:

(1) Does the federal Railway Labor Act exemption found in Wage Order 9 bar a wage-statement claim (Labor Code § 226) by an employee who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement?

(2) Does Section 226 apply to wage statements that an out-of-state employer provides to an employee who resides in California, who receives pay in California, and who pays California income tax on her wages, but who does not work principally in California?

(3) Does Section 226 and Labor Code § 204 (governing timely wage payments to current employees) apply to payments that an out-of-state employer makes to an employee who, in the relevant period, works in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?

(4) Does California minimum wage law apply to out-of-state employers for the California work that their employees perform in California only episodically and for less than a day at a time?

(5) Does California’s peculiar rule preventing pay-averaging for employees paid by commission or piece rate apply to a pay formula that generally awards credit for all hours on duty, but that does not always award pay credit for all hours on duty?

In the underlying lawsuits, United pilots and Delta flight attendants claim that the airlines violated California Labor Code provisions on wage statements, minimum wage, and the timing and completeness of wage payments. United (based in Chicago) and Delta (based in Atlanta) both won at the district court level, successfully arguing that de minimis work within California does not trigger California law, especially when (i) the employers are not based in California, (ii) the employees work only limited amounts of time in the state, and (iii) the employees mostly work in federal air space and in multiple jurisdictions during a single pay period or even a single day.

Why Does This Matter to Employers Based Outside California?

The guidance that the California Supreme Court will issue may ensnare non-California employers in a complex web of Labor Code laws for employees who work in California only sporadically, or who merely stop in California on their way to other work locations. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will stretch to apply California’s peculiar rules on wage statements, daily overtime, and minimum wage to such transitory California work. Or whether California rules on meal and rest beaks, or paid sick time, might also be implicated.

Based on recent emanations from our high court, we would not be surprised to see another extension of California’s employee-protective laws. Any such extension would be highly problematic in light of California’s robust civil and statutory penalties for Labor Code violations. The state’s Private Attorneys General Act authorizes penalty lawsuits brought on a representative basis on behalf of all “aggrieved employees or former employees.” While we do not predict that California will attempt to regulate employment of individuals who merely fly through California airspace, all employers with employees having feet on the ground in California need to sit up, return their tray tables to their original position, and be alert to these pending decisions.

Workplace Solution: The California Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the certified questions will not come down for many months. In the meanwhile, sit back, enjoy the flight, and watch this space for further developments. Feel free to contact your favorite Seyfarth attorney if you would like to discuss.

By: Ariel D. Fenster and Brett C. Bartlett

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to two Florida counties in an action brought against former sheriff deputies under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA). The court held that the deputies were not entitled to compensation for the time that they spent donning and doffing police gear at home or the time that they spent driving to and from work in marked patrol vehicles.

Should we be paying our employees before their shifts start?  The answer is highly fact dependent.  In recent weeks, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Middle District of Florida’s decision that the time deputies spent putting on their police gear at home and driving to and from work in their patrol cars was not compensable.  In Llorca v. Sheriff Collier County, Florida,  the Eleventh Circuit analyzed what type of pre-shift activities may qualify for hourly compensation.  The decision provided a deep analysis of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, as amended by the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996.  In relevant part, the act states that an employer does not have to pay its employees for activities that are “preliminary or postliminary” to the “principal activity” of the job.   The U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted the term “principal activity or activities” to include all activities that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities.”

Continue Reading The Eleventh Circuit Affirmed It Was Not A “Crime” To Not Compensate For Dressing and Drive Time

By: Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler

Seyfarth Synopsis: A New York federal court once again denied a motion for conditional certification of a nationwide collective action against Barnes & Noble.  The ruling highlights that, even though the burden for “first stage” certification is modest, courts are willing to apply a “modest plus” approach after discovery relevant to conditional certification has taken place.  It also shows the potential positive impact the Supreme Court’s recent Encino Motorcars decision may have for employers opposing conditional certification.

Foreword

Once upon a time, we blogged about a decision in the Southern District of New York denying conditional certification of a nationwide collective of café managers at Barnes & Noble.  Undeterred, the managers again sought conditional certification, this time after the parties conducted extensive discovery focused on issues pertinent to conditional certification.  Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker concluded this story by again denying conditional certification, finding that “the solicitation of additional opt-ins will raise more questions and prolong the resolution of this case” given the differences between putative class member.

Chapter 1:  The First Denial

Our tale concerns claims that the café managers were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA.  In her prior decision, Judge Parker denied conditional certification without prejudice given the lack of evidence as to whether the named plaintiffs were similarly situated to the putative class.  She held that she could not “infer that Defendant had a de facto policies of requiring all 1,100 café managers to perform non-exempt work based on the personal experiences of the nine people who have joined this suit” and “nor can it infer such a policy from general assertions” and “cookie-cutter declarations.”

Chapter 2:  Discovery Ensues

Seeking an alternate ending, the plaintiffs advanced the plot, taking extensive discovery focused on conditional certification, including the production of more than 25,000 pages of documents, more than ten depositions, several written statements from opt-ins concerning their job duties, and obtaining contact information for 200 putative members of the putative collective so they could interview them about their job duties.  Given this extensive discovery, Judge Parker held that she would apply a “modest plus” standard in this chapter to determine whether conditional certification was appropriate, rather merely requiring a “modest factual showing.”

Chapter 3:  The Second Denial

Judge Parker began her analysis with a flashback to the Supreme Court’s April 2018 decision in Encino Motorcars.  In that gripping drama, the Court rejected the longstanding notion that FLSA exemptions should be construed narrowly.  Although not faced with deciding whether the managers were in fact misclassified as exempt, Judge Parker cited to Encino Motorcars to set the stage for her decision on certification, stating that she would be guided by “the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement about FLSA exemptions when evaluating whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating the existence of common nationwide policies.”

Under this “modest plus” standard, Judge Parker again denied conditional certification.  In relevant part, Judge Parker held:

In sum, even accepting as true that BN scheduled and directed Café Managers to perform non-exempt tasks, the evidence presented by Plaintiffs does not demonstrate that it is more likely than not that Plaintiffs were subject to a common policy applicable to all Café Managers nationwide requiring them to primarily perform non-exempt duties. It is not enough for Plaintiffs to present policies that BN scheduled or directed Café Managers to perform some non-exempt tasks, because the core issue is whether Plaintiffs have raised an inference that Café Managers’ primary duties were non-managerial.

The plot thickened. Judge Parker further noted that, “Plaintiffs’ varying testimony suggests that some Plaintiffs may have performed more managerial duties than others underscoring the likelihood that…the Court may need to evaluate each Plaintiff individually to determine their primary duties.”

In her final pages, Judge Parker once again dispelled the oft-cited theory advanced by plaintiffs that the reclassification of a position from exempt to non-exempt shows that the position was uniformly misclassified previously.

Epilogue:  What’s Next?

It remains to be seen whether Plaintiffs will try to make this duology into a trilogy by challenging Judge Parker’s decision to the District Judge.  Regardless, this decision, like the one before it, may become a “best seller” for employers in fending off conditional certification motions given its adoption of the “modest plus” standard and reliance on Encino Motors by, in effect, requiring Plaintiffs to show that the putative collective is subject not just to a common practice, but one that would actually violate the FLSA.

By: Simon L. Yang and Kevin M. Young

Seyfarth Synopsis: Most wage and hour laws set out to benefit and protect workers in some way. The recent wave of state and local predictive scheduling laws and minimum wage hikes is no different. Yet it is critical to assess, and attempt to account for, the possibility that these laws could hasten the demise of the very jobs held by the workers they intend to protect the most.

While opinions differ as to how much or how soon workers will have to adapt to the automation tsunami, this trend seems certain to impact the workplace in myriad ways. For example, a recent study focused on the Indianapolis workforce suggests not only the potential for job loss, but unfortunately, a pronounced impact on occupations disproportionately held by women.

Meanwhile, another trend impacting the American workforce involves more active state and local lawmaking concerning wage and hour issues. Prime examples include minimum wage increases and predictive scheduling laws, which are being proposed and enacted across the country with increasing frequency.

With respect to minimum wage hikes, employers are well aware of the “Fight For $15” movement that started in Seattle in 2012. States like California have joined cities like Seattle in enacting laws that phase in $15 minimum wages. Many other jurisdictions have enacted minimum wage ordinances that soar above the federal $7.25 minimum.

Predictive scheduling laws represent a more recent, but arguably more impactful, trend in the retail and foodservice industries. While such laws (or proposals) vary by jurisdiction, they generally require employers to (1) set work schedules at least two weeks in advance; and (2) pay an employee for a certain number of hours not worked due to a subsequent schedule change. These laws also often restrict whether and when a business may hire part-time labor and impose minimum payments for on-call periods when no work is performed.

While these state and local laws intend to benefit workers in today’s economy, it is fair to question what the longer term net impact of this sort of legislation might be.

Even in the short-term, these laws could run counter to other trends in the American workforce. For example, a great many workers value flexible work arrangements and freedom over concrete work expectations and long-term commitments. On the one hand, laws that require employers to adhere to a work schedule set weeks in advance could promote flexibility through predictability. On the other hand, however, such requirements could get in the way of workers who value part-time work over full-time work or who would strongly prefer to go home early if demand is lower than anticipated.

Looking further down the line, the potential ramifications of these legislative efforts loom even larger. By increasing the threshold cost of labor, minimum wage hikes could make the prospect of reducing labor hours, whether via job automation or other means, far more attractive to certain employers. For example, a study on the Seattle minimum wage ordinance found that workers’ hours are being reduced at a rate that exceeds increased wages, resulting in a $74 reduction in average monthly earnings for workers in low-wage jobs.

Predictive scheduling laws seemingly risk the same brand of unintended consequences. To date, these laws have been concentrated in the retail and foodservice industries, where labor costs oftentimes constitute the greatest expense on an employer’s P&L statement. It is fair to wonder how, over time, employers in these industries will adapt to laws that could require them to incur labor expenses not only for hours worked by their employees, but also for certain hours not worked.

None of this is to suggest a particular view on the wisdom of state and local minimum wage and predictive scheduling laws. Protecting the workers of today is a worthy cause. But so too is accounting for the workers of tomorrow. If these new laws could fuel certain businesses to eliminate or automate jobs, or to shy away from mutually desirable part-time or flexible work arrangements, that creates an issue that both opponents and proponents of the laws should be interested in solving.

There is no clear answer on how to balance and account for these issues; the question is layered with political, policy, and ethical considerations that go beyond the confines of a blog post. What does seem clear, however, is that single-faceted wage and hour lawmaking that focuses only on the workers of today could in fact hinder the workers of tomorrow.