Co-authored by Alex Passantino and Kevin Young

On Tuesday, the Wage & Hour Division announced a new program for resolving violations of the FLSA without the need for litigation. The Payroll Audit Independent Determination program—or “PAID”—is intended to facilitate the efficient resolution of overtime and minimum wage claims under the FLSA. The program will be conducted for a six-month pilot period, after which time WHD will review the results and determine how best to proceed.

PAID should be welcome news for compliance-minded employers. In the vast majority of cases, FLSA claims must be resolved through litigation or under WHD’s supervision. Given the proliferation of FLSA litigation, many employers have, in recent years, conducted proactive audits with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the Act. Oftentimes, employers who identified past issues through those efforts were reluctant to approach an enforcement-happy WHD to request supervision of back wage payments due to concern that doing so would trigger litigation. Employers were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

By providing a mechanism for proactively resolving wage-hour issues without the need for litigation, the PAID program should increase the incentive for employers to conduct formal audits of their wage-hour practices.

While we expect details on the PAID program, including an official launch date, to crystallize in the weeks to come, the WHD has already provided guidance on the contours of the program. According to WHD, an eligible employer who wishes to participate in the program must:

  • Specifically identify the potential violations,
  • Identify which employees were affected,
  • Identify the timeframes in which each employee was affected, and
  • Calculate the amount of back wages the employer believes are owed to each employee.

The employer must then contact WHD to discuss the issue(s) for which it seeks resolution. Following that discussion, WHD will inform the employer of the manner in which the employer must provide required information, including:

  • Each of the calculations described above—accompanied by evidence and explanation;
  • A concise explanation of the scope of the potential violations for possible inclusion in a release of liability;
  • A certification that the employer reviewed all of the information, terms, and compliance assistance materials;
  • A certification that the employer is not litigating the compensation practices at issue in court, arbitration, or otherwise, and likewise has not received any communications from an employee’s representative or counsel expressing interest in litigating or settling the same issues; and
  • A certification that the employer will adjust its practices to avoid the same potential violations in the future.

At the conclusion of the process, the employer must make back wage payments. That process may look similar to the end of a WHD investigation in which violations are found. If an employee accepts the back wages, she will waive her rights to a private cause of action under the FLSA for the identified issues and timeframe. An employee who chooses not to accept the back wages will not be impacted.

We will share more as additional information becomes available. If you have any questions about the PAID program, the planning or execution of a proactive wage-hour audit, or any related issues, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Co-authored by Kevin Young and Kara Goodwin

Even as FLSA litigation has surged to historic highs, it is rare to see a nefarious violation of the Act by a manager or supervisor. Far more prevalent, it seems, are stories of managers who, while intending to afford employees freedom and flexibility, instead trip over one of many hurdles scattered across the 1938 legislation. At a time when plaintiffs’ attorneys are more regularly naming individual managers, not just corporations, as FLSA defendants, preventing these stories is important as ever.

In our experience, managers across the corporate landscape grasp broad wage-hour ground rules and concepts, such as requiring employees to clock in before they start work and paying employees at least minimum wage. Training is important in these areas, but it is not quite where the rubber meets the road.

Far more important a topic, in our experience, are the ways in which a manager’s well-intentioned decisions can result in potential violations of the FLSA. Here, in honor of the Act’s upcoming 80th birthday, we offer eight hypothetical examples of this. (Eighty was a bridge too far for this post.) While far from exhaustive, these are the types of examples that can provide a basis for meaningful conversations with managers and supervisors about the relevant—and sometimes hidden—contours of the FLSA.

  1. You had a great January, but let’s have an even better in February. Whoever makes 50 sales will get a $150 bonus. This isn’t the company’s thing, it’s my thing.” In a vacuum, incentivizing employees to perform isn’t just okay—it is good management. Unfortunately, the nature of the incentive can have serious wage-hour implications. First, if the incentive is non-discretionary, it must be included in the “regular rate” of pay, upon which overtime pay is based. It makes no difference if the incentive is offered company-wide or only on a small team. As a distant second, occasionally production bonuses can have an unintended effect of encouraging after-hours work, which could be an issue if those hours aren’t recorded and paid. Supervisors should take care to ensure that any incentive payment is: (i) accounted for, if necessary, in the overtime calculation; and (ii) not interpreted as a relaxation of standing policies, such as those prohibiting off-the-clock work.
  2. Of course you can take it home!” It’s 5 pm and an hourly employee scheduled until 6:00 asks his supervisor if he may leave early to pick up his kid—he promises to finish his work at home later that night. Wanting to promote balance and flexibility, the supervisor agrees. While there is nothing illegal about this, the supervisor must understand potential wage-hour ramifications. An employer must pay for work it knows about or reasonably should know about, regardless of when or where the work occurs. If a supervisor is going to authorize after-hours remote work, it is essential that he or she also enforce timekeeping practices that prevent that work from going unrecorded and unpaid.
  3. Have a minute to help me out? You can take the remaining 20 minutes of your 30-minute lunch break after we’re done.” It seems harmless enough—after all, the employee will end up getting a full 30 minutes either way. But if the employer treats meal breaks, including this one, as unpaid, this could create an issue. The FLSA generally requires that an unpaid meal break like this one be uninterrupted and contiguous. Here, the supervisor should know that the employee must either (a) be paid for the whole break, or (b) be permitted to take his or her full break at a later time.
  4. Rather than recording overtime this week, why don’t you take off a few hours early next Friday and spend the afternoon with your kid?” If an employee works over 40 hours in a workweek, the FLSA requires that the employee be paid overtime. Private-sector employers should not offer or allow compensatory time off in future workweeks in lieu of overtime, even if an employee requests it.
  5. Jim volunteered an additional hour last night because he wants to prove he’s worth the promotion. I respect that sort of drive…heck, I did the same thing.” In nearly every context, the fact that an employee “volunteers” his or her work time is not a sound reason for failing to pay the employee for the associated work.
  6. Our team party starts at 3 pm. You can work through it, but I’d certainly prefer to see you there—it’s important to our team culture.” Social gatherings during the workday should typically be paid. Even if scheduled after hours, the time needs to be paid for nonexempt employees required to attend. The grey area, of course, lies between mandatory and purely voluntary attendance. Proof that attendance was strongly encouraged could support a finding that attendance was not purely voluntary and that the time should be paid.
  7. My team knows that if they ask for OT, I will always approve it. The only reason I didn’t pay Alexa’s overtime last week is that she forgot to seek preapproval—I can’t allow that to happen, and Alexa realizes that.” It is certainly permissible to require employees to seek approval prior to working overtime. It is not permissible, however, to condition payment of overtime hours worked on an employee’s compliance with that requirement. As a general rule, once the overtime is worked, the employer must pay for the time.
  8. We actually don’t need you today. And didn’t you tell me your daughter is home from college today? This works out perfectly—why don’t you head home and spend the day with her.” A growing number of states require employers to pay for “show up” or “reporting” time. This refers to a minimum amount of pay—for instance, 3 or 4 hours at the applicable minimum wage—if an employee scheduled to work longer is sent home after reporting to work for the day. There are exceptions, of course, but these rules can create traps for the unwary.

As these examples help to demonstrate, the FLSA is too thorny a place to entrust compliance to managers’ and supervisors’ intentions alone. Even top-notch, employee-first managers can find themselves trapped in one of the FLSA’s various pitfalls, potentially exposing the employer—and possibly even the supervisor herself—to potential liability.

Given these realities, employers are well served by considering the subtle ways in which FLSA issues may arise in their workplace and taking a proactive approach to training supervisors to address those issues. If we can be of assistance in that effort, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.

Authored by Robert Whitman

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Second Circuit has upheld summary judgment against magazine interns seeking payment as “employees” under the FLSA.

In an end-of-semester decision that may represent the final grade for unpaid interns seeking minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA, the Second Circuit has firmly rejected claims by Hearst magazine interns challenging their unpaid status.

The interns served on an unpaid basis for various magazines published by Hearst Corporation, either during college or for a few months between college and graduate school. They sued, claiming they were employees because they provided work of value to Hearst and received little professional benefit in return.

Following discovery, District Judge J. Paul Oetken rejected the interns’ claim of employee status and granted summary judgment to Hearst. On appeal, the Second Circuit framed the question succinctly: “whether Hearst furnishes bona fide for‐credit internships or whether it exploits student‐interns to avoid hiring and compensating entry‐level employees.” If the former were true, the interns would be deemed trainees, who could permissibly be unpaid; if the latter were true, the interns would be entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay.

In support of their appeal, the interns argued that many of the tasks they performed were “menial and repetitive,” that they received “little formal training,” and that they “mastered their tasks within a couple weeks, but did the same work for the duration of the internship.” These points, they contended, outweighed their receipt of college credit and other indicia of an academic flavor to their experience.

The appeals court, in Wang v. Hearst Corp., appeared to have little trouble upholding the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hearst. Applying its test for assessing whether interns are employees or trainees, the court held that the factual record favored non-employee status on six of the seven pertinent factors, enough to sustain the judgment in the company’s favor.

Those seven factors, as loyal blog readers will recall from prior posts, first appeared in the court’s 2016 decision in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight, in which the court held that the “primary beneficiary” test governed whether interns were considered employees or trainees. The Glatt court rejected the Department of Labor’s multi-factor test and devised its own:

  1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa;
  2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands‐on training provided by educational institutions;
  3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the internʹs formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit;
  4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the internʹs academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar;
  5. The extent to which the internshipʹs duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning;
  6. The extent to which the internʹs work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern;
  7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

The factors are non-exhaustive, and as the Second Circuit reiterated in the current case, need not all point in the same direction to support a conclusion of non-employee status.

The “heart of the dispute on appeal” was factor two — whether the interns received “training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment.” The plaintiffs argued that, in order for this factor to weigh in favor of non-employee status, the internships would have to provide “education that resembles university pedagogy to the exclusion of tasks that apply specific skills to the professional environment.”

The court was not convinced. It recognized that the Hearst internships varied in many respects from classroom learning. But as it had said earlier in Glatt, this was precisely the point. “The [plaintiffs’] tacit assumption is that professions, trades, and arts are or should be just like school; but many useful internships are designed to correct that impression…. [P]ractical skill may entail practice, and an intern gains familiarity with an industry by day to day professional experience.”

Perhaps the most significant part of the ruling comes at the end, where the court discusses the propriety of summary judgment. The interns, and various amici curiae (unions, advocacy groups, and professors) who advocated on their behalf, argued strenuously that various “mixed inferences” on the seven internship factors precluded a grant of summary judgment. While acknowledging that application of the factors required some weighing of evidence, the court nonetheless said this did not mean the case required a trial.

“Status as an ‘employee’ for the purposes of the FLSA is a matter of law,” the court said, “and under our summary judgment standard, a district court can strike a balance on the totality of the circumstances to rule for one side or the other.” It continued: “Many of our FLSA tests that are fact‐sensitive and require the judge to assign weight are routinely disposed of on summary judgment [citing cases]. The amici contend that summary judgment is inapposite in all unpaid intern cases that turn on competing factors. Such a rule would foreclose weighing of undisputed facts in this commonplace fashion.”

In many ways, the Wang decision may be the epilogue to a textbook that has already been written. After the Glatt decision in 2016, the number of lawsuits filed by interns seeking unpaid compensation dropped precipitously. That may have been due to Glatt’s highly-employer-friendly resolution, both as to the merits of the employee-or-intern question and its pronouncements on the high threshold for collective/class certification on the question. Or perhaps it was due to the decisions by employers, reacting to the onslaught of intern lawsuits seeking pay under the FLSA and state law, to curtail or limit their internship programs or to pay interns compensation at or above minimum wage. Whatever the reason, the Wang decision cannot be heartening for plaintiffs’ lawyers, and the days of widespread lawsuits by interns are likely over.

Still, companies who remain interested in sponsoring unpaid interns should not get complacent. Paying minimum wage, of course, remains a fail proof antidote to the possibility of FLSA claims by these individuals. But if that is not an option, companies should take care to ensure that their programs have primarily educational aims and coordinate wherever possible with the interns’ educational institutions to ensure they meet the factors articulated by the court. Otherwise, the interns may be the ones teaching them a lesson.

Co-authored by Cheryl Luce, Kyla Miller, and Noah Finkel

Seyfarth Synopsis: A recent decision highlights why the FLSA is not always the remedial statute created to protect low-income workers by holding that four commission-based sales representatives, each earning six figures, were not exempt from the overtime requirements because they were not paid on a salary basis.

Our readers are well aware that under the FLSA, employers are required to pay employees overtime equal to time and one-half the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek unless an exemption applies. When making exempt classification decisions, the focus tends to be on whether employees are doing the kind of work that would satisfy the applicable duties test and whether employees are making enough to satisfy the income thresholds. But the FLSA exemptions don’t concern only how much employees are paid, but also how they are paid. Though sometimes overlooked, technical requirements about how employees are paid can carry the day in a misclassification lawsuit, leaving a trail of decisions that often seem contrary to the purpose set out by the creators of the FLSA. This was one such decision.

This decision illustrates how the FLSA often is applied in a way that is a far cry from what it was originally intended to be: an Act passed during the Great Depression to ensure a living wage for working Americans. In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that four highly compensated sales representatives, who were paid on a commission basis, were not exempt from FLSA’s overtime provisions despite the fact that the plaintiffs each earned well over $100,000 per year. In fact, one sales representative topped out at over $900,000 per year. Across the relevant period, the plaintiffs’ compensation averaged about $470,00 per year.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were exempt from overtime wages under the highly compensated employee exception. Under this exemption, the employee must perform office or non-manual work and be paid a total annual compensation of $100,000 or more (which must include at least $455 per week paid on a salary or fee basis) and must customarily and regularly perform at least one of the duties of an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee. The defendants argued that even though the plaintiffs were paid by commissions on sales, the highly compensated employee exemption applies because the commissions are “fees,” so they were paid on a fee basis. The plaintiffs argued that the highly compensated employee exemption applies only when employees are paid on a salary basis and that the commissions they received were not “fees.” The court agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs’ compensation did not meet the highly compensated employee exemption’s salary basis test.

We previously have discussed courts’ construction of the FLSA as “remedial and humanitarian in purpose and must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.” We have argued that courts apply this construction inconsistently and often illogically. And this case serves as one more challenge to the unsupported dicta that we find in many cases stating that, because the FLSA is “remedial and humanitarian,” its exemptions must be “narrowly construed.” Here, we have employees who are very high earners, with two employees making close to one million dollars in a single year, and whose employer is now forced to pay them additional compensation and liquidated damages (and a fee petition for their lawyers is sure to come next). The court construed the FLSA exemptions against these employees narrowly, and we can discern no remedial or humanitarian purpose that the FLSA is serving here. Rather, this decision reflects the FLSA as a statue riddled with technical traps and rigid rules that do not necessarily serve to ensure a living wage for working Americans.

Authored By Alex Passantino

As we’ve reported previously, among the items the Department of Labor identified earlier this year in its Regulatory Agenda was a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to rescind portions of a 2011 rule that restricted tip pooling for employers who do not use the tip credit to satisfy their minimum wage obligations. On October 24, 2017, that NPRM was sent to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review and approval. One of the cases challenging the validity of the 2011 rulemaking may be on its way to the Supreme Court, with the Administration’s response to a cert petition due on November 7. With that deadline looming, it’s possible that the Administration is seeking to moot the issue before the Supreme Court has the chance to address some of the issues related to agency deference.

After OIRA clears the NPRM, it will be sent to the Federal Register for the public to provide comments in response to the Department’s proposal. At that time, we’ll know the specifics of the proposal and will be able to provide more guidance on what this means for employers. Stay tuned.


Co-authored by Brett Bartlett, Alex Passantino, and Kevin Young

Seyfarth Synopsis: On Thursday afternoon, a federal judge in Texas issued an order officially invalidating the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2016 overtime rule, which would have more than doubled the minimum salary level for most overtime-exempt employees. While the long awaited ruling brings a measure of closure for employers, the possibility of appeal, as well as the new administration’s efforts to revise the existing overtime exemption rules, will be critical issues for employers watch in the weeks and months to come.

For nearly a year, employers have been watching and waiting as litigation challenging the Obama administration’s revision to the FLSA’s executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions—a revision intended to make millions of more Americans eligible for overtime pay—wound its way through litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit of Appeals. As of Thursday afternoon, the waiting is over: District Judge Amos Mazzant issued an order invalidating the revised rule.

The Obama DOL’s revised rule, which was finalized in the summer of 2016 and slated to take effect on December 1, 2016, would have increased the salary level required for EAP employees from $455 per week (i.e., $23,660 per year) to $913 per week (i.e., $47,476 per year). The rule also called for automatic, inflation-indexed updates to the salary level every three years. Ultimately, the revised rule did not become effective on December 1, however, because Judge Mazzant issued an order days prior that preliminarily enjoined it from going into effect.

District Judge Mazzant issued his order in two consolidated lawsuits challenging the DOL for acting beyond its rulemaking authority. The order was the result of a motion filed by a group of state attorneys general who argued that the DOL’s rulemaking was invalid, in part because it exceeded the authority Congress gave DOL to define who is a “bona fide” EAP employee who should not be entitled to overtime pay. At about the same time that the “state plaintiffs” filed their motion for preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, another set of plaintiffs—a group of business associations (“business plaintiffs”)—filed an expedited motion for summary judgment, advancing similar arguments that the DOL’s rulemaking was unlawful.

After Judge Mazzant granted the state plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, the Obama DOL filed an interlocutory appeal in the Fifth Circuit attacking the injunction order. Importantly, however, this was just before the Trump Administration took office. Ultimately, briefing in the appeal was delayed as a new president settled into office and his new Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta, took the helm at DOL. In doing so, Secretary Acosta and his Acting Solicitor were required to assess how to maneuver a proceeding involving an injunction order that on the one hand blocked the implementation of an overtime rule championed by the prior administration, but on the other hand suggested that the DOL might not have authority to set any salary level for the EAP exemptions, despite having done so for nearly eighty years.

In the meantime, the business plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment lingered before the district court.

Thursday’s ruling was preceded by a recent flurry of activity. On Wednesday, for example, Judge Mazzant issued an order confirming no further argument was necessary on the summary judgment motion. The court also collapsed the state plaintiffs’ and business plaintiffs’ cases together and joined the state plaintiffs to the business plaintiffs’ pending summary judgment motion. Nevertheless, it seemed unlikely that Judge Mazzant would rule on the summary judgment motion before hearing from the Fifth Circuit regarding his earlier preliminary injunction order. After all, an appellate ruling on whether it was proper to preliminarily enjoin the new rule certainly could have impacted or at least informed Judge Mazzant’s reasoning on whether the rule should be declared invalid, as the summary judgment motion argued it should.

Meanwhile, at the Fifth Circuit, oral argument was slated for October 3, and the parties were jockeying for an opportunity to be heard. The business plaintiffs, who were not parties to the appeal, requested permission to appear as amici at the oral argument. Soon thereafter, all parties filed a motion to stay proceedings while they attempted to negotiate a deal that would eliminate the need for further proceedings. Indeed, even on Thursday as the district court was issuing its final judgment, the parties on appeal were filing various submissions with the Fifth Circuit.

So perhaps all were surprised when District Judge Mazzant issued orders finding that the DOL’s 2016 rulemaking was invalid, and that the AFL-CIO would not be joined to the case. The district court’s ruling on both of these issues is fairly straightforward. On the motion for summary judgment, which collapsed all parties and remaining issues into its walls, the court ruled as follows:

  • As associations and similar groups, the business plaintiffs had standing to challenge the DOL’s rulemaking.
  • The FLSA does in fact apply to state governments, contrary to the state plaintiffs’ arguments.
  • Applying Chevron deference analysis, the DOL exceeded its authority by setting a salary level test that in effect eliminated the need to consider whether employees performed duties that demonstrate their roles working in a bona fide EAP capacity, based on definitions that Congress would have understood at the time it enacted the FLSA.
  • The automatic updating provided by the DOL’s final 2016 rule was unlawful for similar reasons.
  • Clarifying an area of concern for the DOL and other stakeholders, the court did not rule on the question of whether the DOL has authority to set any salary level for the EAP exemptions. The court’s ruling concerned only the 2016 rulemaking, finding the heightened salary level under the revised rule goes too far.

In denying the AFL-CIO’s motion to intervene as a necessary or permissive party, the court reasoned:

  • The union’s motion was untimely, as it had been aware of the litigation and the issues on which it bore. Yet it waited to file its motion to intervene until material events had occurred in the litigation.
  • The union failed to show that the DOL and related defendants were not adequately representing the interests that it purported to protect.
  • The union had argued among its primary points that Secretary of Labor nominee Andrew Puzder would not protect those interests; but Alexander Acosta was confirmed as Secretary of Labor, meaning that Mr. Puzder’s potential actions never became a reality.
  • And the court would nevertheless not exercise its discretion to allow the union to join the case.

The question on everyone’s mind is: where does this leave us?

One easy answer is that with respect to the EAP exemption itself, the 2004 rule remains in place. Employees making $455 per week (i.e., $23,660 per year) and whose primary duty satisfies one of the EAP duties tests may be classified as exempt.

Beyond that, there are no easy answers. The parties are no doubt considering whether the district court’s summary judgment order, which purports to withdraw all prior rulings, renders the pending appeal moot or requires its dismissal. After all, the summary judgment motion decided by the district court presents largely the same issues currently before the Fifth Circuit—namely, the validity of the new overtime rule. Some commentators have already exclaimed that the district court’s order mooted the interlocutory appeal entirely. Our view is that the question could be more complicated. Suffice it to say, there’s a lot to digest.

Either way, it also remains unclear whether either side will appeal Thursday’s rulings. While one would assume that DOL will not, we can’t slam the door on the possibility. As we saw with the appeal of the preliminary injunction, even the new Administration’s policy differences may not override DOL’s desire to defend itself against court orders limiting its authority, as the preliminary injunction did and as the court’s summary judgment order appears to do. If DOL determines that there is an institutional need to preserve its rulemaking authority, then it is possible we might see a DOL-initiated appeal, which would further complicate the question of how the union might agitate the proceedings.

As for the AFL-CIO, next steps are even foggier at this moment. Given that the DOL has already signaled the commencement of new rulemaking on the EAP exemptions, the AFL-CIO may take the view that even a complete victory on appeal—i.e., one that would permit its inclusion in the case and the reversal of the district court’s summary judgment decision—would ring hollow, as it could be undone by the DOL’s efforts to formulate a new rule that would take the place of the Obama rule.

Without question, the Eastern District of Texas’s order invalidating the 2016 overtime rule brings a large measure of closure for employers waiting to learn whether the rule would ever go into effect. The completeness and finality of that closure will depend largely on whether the AFL-CIO seeks appeal, as well as the DOL’s anticipated efforts to implement a new rule altogether. We will, of course, continue to monitor and update you on these important events.

Co-authored by Steve Shardonofsky and Kevin A. Fritz

Seyfarth Synopsis: As employers begin to pick up the pieces following Hurricane Harvey, management will likely encounter questions about employee pay, benefits, and leaves of absence during and after this disaster, and may also have questions about how to help their workers get by during this difficult time. After making sure your workers are safe, and as you start to rebuild and repair, read on for practical guidance on these pressing issues.

This past weekend Hurricane Harvey made land fall, causing unprecedented and catastrophic flooding in southeastern Texas. Our thoughts go out to our colleagues, clients, and friends affected by this natural disaster. We are thinking of you during this difficult and trying time.

Pay for Non-Exempt Employees

The General Rule

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an employer is only required to pay non-exempt employees for hours actually worked. In other words, businesses are not required to pay non-exempt employees if they are not working, including times when the employer closes its doors or reduces hours of operation, whether or not forced to do so by inclement weather. Moreover, while some states require some minimum “reporting” or “show up” pay for employees who show up for work and are either turned away at the door or dismissed before the end of their scheduled shifts, Texas is not one of those states.

An important exception to this general rule exists for non-exempt employees who receive fixed salaries for fluctuating hours from week to week. Because these employees must be paid a “fixed” salary, employers must pay these workers their full weekly salary for any week in which any work was performed and may not dock their pay for days when the office is closed due to inclement weather.

Even if your business is not open during inclement weather days, you always are free to pay employees for that time, and may also permit them to use their paid leave time, if applicable.

Inclement Weather Delays and Traffic

Flooding and severe weather often cause unpredictable traffic delays, and may even result in employees becoming stranded on the road. Employees who perform work while stranded—for example, by taking phone calls or answering e-mails on their way to work—must be compensated for that time even if done away from the office. Similarly, an employee who is stranded in an employer’s vehicle on their way to work and instructed to safeguard the vehicle or other property is generally entitled to pay for time beyond their ordinary home-to-work commute (i.e., once their scheduled shift begins).

With respect to inclement weather, the general and most practical advice is to pay for any extra time spent getting to work during a scheduled shift, particularly when employees are stranded for reasons outside their control. It is likely that the Department of Labor or even a court would find that all of the time the employee was stranded within their regular shift is compensable time. Even where reasonable minds could differ on these questions, since the costs of defending these claims often exceed the underlying payroll costs, it often makes sense to pay employees for this time in the first place.

Pay for Exempt Employees

The General Rule

Exempt employees under the FLSA must be paid on a “salary basis” and earn a full day’s pay when they work any part of the day, regardless of the quality or quantity of the work performed. Thus, if a business is closed because of inclement weather and an exempt employee is ready, willing, and able to work, she must be paid for that day. On the other hand, if the exempt employee does not work for an entire workweek (for personal reasons or because the business is closed), the exempt employee need not be paid for that time—that is, the employer may “dock” her salary for the full workweek.

If the business is open and an exempt employee elects to stay home to make repairs or volunteer at a local shelter, the employer may “dock” their salary in full day increments (but perhaps consider not doing so to encourage volunteerism and aid in recovery efforts). In these instances, and including situations when exempt employees elect to arrive late or leave early for personal reasons, employers may also deduct accrued leave time in full or partial day increments as long as the employee receives his or her full pay for the week. In the event that the employee does not have any accrued time, an employer may also simply pay him or her for the day or allow the employee to take an advance on accrued paid leave and make it up at a later time. This practice is not allowed for non-exempt employees, who must be paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a work week. See here for more information on the FLSA salary basis rules.

Safe Harbor

Remember, improper or inadvertent deductions from pay will not typically result in the loss of exemption status if the employer reimburses the employees for the improper deductions, has a clearly communicated safe harbor policy prohibiting improper deductions, and a complaint mechanism for exempt employees to use if improper deductions are made.

Telework or Working from Home

Allowing employees to work from home during this time will aid recovery efforts and help families recover faster. Regardless of exemption status, employees who work from home during inclement weather, even if only a few hours per week, must be paid for that time. Thus, employers who will keep their businesses up and running during the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey should clearly communicate to employees who is and who is not permitted to work from home, when that work can be done, whether overtime is permitted, and how to record time worked outside of the company’s premises. It is also important to remind employees to record all hours worked, even when the work is done away from the employer’s premises. Employers should be sensitive to the fact that not all employees will be able to work remotely, and therefore should consider alternative arrangements like temporary or shared offices.

On-Call and Waiting Time

Power outages are common during natural disasters, and many employers will require their employees to wait out or work through such power failures. In most cases, any employee who is required to remain at the employer’s premises or close by and therefore unable to use that time for his own benefit (even if not working) must be compensated for that time. For example, employees who are onsite to perform emergency repairs and who are not free to leave the company’s premises must be compensated for time even if they do not ultimately perform any work. Similarly, if an employee is onsite and required to wait through a power outage, the time waiting for the power to resume is typically considered time worked and is therefore compensable.

Volunteer Time for Company Repairs

Employers should generally be cautious about having employees “volunteer” to assist during an emergency, particularly if those duties benefit the company and are regularly performed by employees. Exempt employees who volunteer to help will not be entitled to any additional compensation. But remember that too much time spent on manual tasks or other tasks unrelated to their regular job duties could invalidate their exempt status and allow them to claim overtime compensation. Conversely, non-exempt employees must be paid for all time worked, even if they offer to work and help make repairs for “free,” with one exception:  Employers may accept free work from employees of government or non-profit agencies who volunteer out of public-spiritedness to perform work that is not at all similar to their regular duties.

Leaves of Absence After a Natural Disaster

Otherwise eligible employees affected by a natural disaster may elect to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a serious health condition caused by the disaster. Additionally, employees affected by a natural disaster who must care for a child, spouse, or parent with a serious health condition may also be entitled to leave. This includes job-protected leave to care for a family member who is a current service member with a serious injury or illness. FMLA leave for this purpose is called “military caregiver leave.”

Adding to the difficulty, employers may encounter uncommon FMLA issues during and after severe storms, including absences caused by an employee’s need to care for a family member who requires refrigerated medicine or medical equipment that is not operating properly because of a power outage. What’s more, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employee who is physically or emotionally injured as a result of a disaster may be entitled to leave as a reasonable accommodation, so long as it would not place undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.

Employees who are part of an emergency services organization may also have rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Under certain conditions, USERRA provides job-protected leave for U.S. service-members. Although USERRA does require advance notice of military service, there are no strict time limits for notice after a natural disaster as long as it is reasonably “timely.” Employers should be prepared to receive and assist employees giving notice under USERRA and other laws allowing for job-protected leave.

Many counties in Texas have been declared in a state of emergency following Hurricane Harvey. While this does not provide pay or other protections for Texas employees, the Texas Workforce Commission advices that “absences due to closure of the business based on bad weather or other similar disaster or emergency condition should not count toward whatever absence limit a business has” —particularly for nonessential employees. On the other hand, if other employees are able to make it in to work (including workers from similar areas), absences for personal reasons may count toward an absence limit. On balance, however, it is always advisable to discourage the discipline of any nonessential employees who are unable to report to work during a state of emergency.

Weathering the Storm Together

While legal compliance is important, there are other practical ways employers can help workers weather the storm and get back on track. Business owners should consider relaxing the usual telecommuting rules to allow affected employees to work from home as much as possible. To minimize financial hardship, employers should continue to process payroll in a timely manner. Consider providing pay advances, loans, or even advances for paid time off/vacation time to help employees offset unanticipated expenses for repairs and insurance deductibles.

To the extent possible, employers may consider offering employees paid leave for time spent volunteering to assist with disaster relief efforts. Employers can also implement a leave donation/sharing policy to allow employees to donate paid leave to employees who will use it to volunteer in relief services or for those otherwise affected by this terrible disaster.

For more information on this topic, please contact the authors, your Seyfarth Attorney, or any member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Wage and Hour Team.

Authored by Cheryl Luce

Employers often grapple with what to do when their policies prohibit off-duty work, like working on mobile devices after hours, that employees don’t follow. Even if it has a policy prohibiting off-duty work, if the employer knows (or should know) an employees is working, the employer must compensate the employee for the off-duty work. The same can be said if an employer has a policy requiring employees to report all off-duty time worked but knows (or should know) that employees are not reporting it. As the regulations put it, employers cannot “sit back and accept” work without compensating it, even though the employer has rules against it. 29 C.F.R. § 785.13.

But what about when the employer knows that employees are working off-duty, but does not know that employees aren’t reporting their time? Does the requirement that an employer must exercise “reasonable diligence” to unearth unreported work mean the employer has a responsibility to check what it knows of employees’ off-duty work against the time they report? Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit agreed that the FLSA’s “suffer or permit to work” standard does not go so far.

In Allen v. City of Chicago, police officers at the Chicago Police Department’s Bureau of Organized Crime claimed that they were owed overtime pay for off-duty work on their BlackBerrys, even though they failed to report the overtime using the police department’s time slip reporting system. The trial court concluded that the Bureau supervisors knew the officers sometimes worked off-duty on their BlackBerrys, but they did not know or have reason to know that the officers were not submitting time slips for such work. Affirming the judgment in favor of the police department, the Seventh Circuit held that the trial court reasonably concluded that requiring the police department to check what they knew of the officers’ off-duty work against officers’ time slips they approved would be “extremely impractical.”

The Allen police officers also contended that the police department discouraged them from seeking overtime payment for off-duty BlackBerry work, which stopped them from submitting time slips for the work. Neither the trial court nor the Seventh Circuit were moved by the evidence in support of this argument. No supervisor ever told plaintiffs not to submit time slips for BlackBerry work, and no officer was disciplined for submitting such time slips. The plaintiffs’ de facto policy theory failed.

This case serves as a reminder that employers are only required to pay for off-duty work that they know or should have known was performed—not what they could have known was performed. Assuming it has no reason to believe an employee who sometimes works off hours is working off the clock, an employer in the Seventh Circuit is generally not required to cross-check the employee’s timecards to make sure they are reporting all time worked.

Authored by Alex Passantino

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Wage & Hour Division announced its regulatory plan for the next year and it is less ambitious than some may have anticipated.  A request for information on the overtime rule and a proposal to rescind a limited tip credit regulation are all that is on the immediate horizon for employers.

Each spring and fall, Washington waits with bated breath as the Executive Branch releases its regulatory agenda. As the first pronouncement of some of the specifics of the Trump Administration’s regulatory plans, this year’s agenda was anticipated more than most. And now we have it

The Wage and Hour Division’s initial plans include the announced Request for Information on the white collar exemptions, which is expected to be published this month. An as-of-yet-unannounced action, however, is a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would rescind aspects of the Department’s 2011 rule related to tipped employees. Specifically, the NPRM would seek comment on the Department’s proposal to rescind the portion of the rule that restricts tip pooling for employers who do not use the tip credit to satisfy their minimum wage obligations. That rule has been the subject of much litigation, with mixed results. One of the cases may be on its way to the Supreme Court, with the Administration’s response to a cert petition due on September 8. With the NPRM slated for an August publication, it’s possible that the Administration may be seeking to avoid review by the Supreme Court on some of the touchier issues related to the proper deference a federal agency should be afforded. We’ll keep you posted.

Finally, WHD has identified a long-term plan to revisit the Section 14(c) program. Section 14(c) of the FLSA permits, under certain circumstances, employment of individuals with disabilities at subminimum wages. It is a politically sensitive program, and one in need of updating. No timetable has been provided for the Department’s review.

Co-authored by Kristin McGurn and Kevin Young

Seyfarth Synopsis: At a time when the Massachusetts meal break landscape is increasingly friendly to employees, a federal judge in the state recently denied class certification in a meal break case, Romulus, et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. At issue were store policies, common in retail, that called for in-store key-holder coverage whenever the store was occupied. This decision represents both a victory and a roadmap for employers, and particularly retailers, facing meal break claims under Massachusetts law.

The plaintiffs in Romulus alleged that as Shift Supervisors, they were required to remain in the store during certain of their unpaid meal breaks, particularly during times when no other managers were present in the store. Further, the plaintiffs alleged, such breaks were often interrupted due to work. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs sought certification of two classes of Shift Supervisors under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On Wednesday, Judge Rya W. Zobel of the District of Massachusetts entered an order denying the plaintiffs’ bid for class certification. Relying on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent decision in DeVito v. Longwood Security Services, which set a strict standard for being “relieved of all duties” in order for meal breaks to be unpaid under state law, Judge Zobel assumed for purposes of her decision that remaining on-premises during a break is compensable “work.” Even under that assumption, Judge Zobel found class certification improper due to the plaintiffs’ inability to satisfy Rule 23’s “commonality” and “predominance” requirements.

With respect to commonality, Judge Zobel relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s monumental decision Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in searching for a “common contention” that might produce the same injury to all class members. The judge found that resolving plaintiffs’ claims depended on the answers to two questions: (1) were putative class members required to remain in the store during meal breaks; and (2) if so, were they required to clock out (and thus be unpaid). She ruled that plaintiffs’ reliance on CVS’s policy and handbook statements were insufficient to resolve these critical questions on a class-wide level.

Specifically, Judge Zobel rejected the contention that policy statements relating to supervisor presence in the store when it was occupied by customers, taken together with a policy providing unpaid meal breaks, equated to common proof of an illegal practice capable of resolving all class members’ claims. The plaintiffs did not contend that the policies were facially unlawful, but rather challenged their implementation. Siding with CVS, Judge Zobel noted that the policy language did not necessitate that a Shift Supervisor remain in-store during meal breaks or take a meal break when no other manager was present. The judge also noted CVS policy language providing for the reporting and payment of in-store breaks. Accordingly, Judge Zobel found that—even assuming a policy requiring Shift Supervisors to remain in the store during certain meal breaks—resolving whether class members were required to clock out and go without pay for such breaks could not be resolved through common proof.

Judge Zobel also found that Rule 23’s more demanding predominance factor was unmet. That is, even if the law required CVS to compensate Shift Supervisors for meal breaks when they were required to remain on premises, the questions of whether supervisors were in fact required to do so, and whether they were then compensated, remained both unanswered and individualized. Denying certification, Judge Zobel ruled that the proposed classes were not “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.”

The Romulus decision represents a major win for employers in the battle to avoid class certification, which is particularly notable on the heels of the stringent standard for unpaid meal breaks established in DeVito. The decision also provides a strategic roadmap for employers seeking to avoid certification where break-by-break implementation of facially lawful meal break policies is challenged.