Category: Wage and Hour

Second Circuit Declines to Rehear Decision Allowing Class Action Waivers in FLSA Suits

The question concerning the enforceability of class action waivers in arbitration agreements to foreclose an employee’s ability to litigate collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has been answered affirmatively in New York by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 15, 2013, the Second Circuit rejected a rehearing petition from Stephanie Sutherland, a former Ernst & Young LLP employee, who challenged a class action wavier in an arbitration agreement that barred her from pursuing a collective action for overtime pay under the FLSA. The decision lets stand the Circuit Court’s August 9th panel ruling that an employee can be required as a condition of employment to waive, pursuant to an arbitration agreement, the right to bring a collective or class action.

The Supreme Court Addresses Offers of Judgment in the Context of Collective Actions

In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symcyk, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, rejected an employee’s contention that her employer should not have been permitted to thwart her attempt to bring a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by making an offer of judgment to her under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that included all of the relief to which she would have been entitled in connection with her individual FLSA claim. The Court’s April 16, 2013, ruling provides encouragement to employers who may seek to block an FLSA collective action with an offer of judgment–although, as detailed below, the Court’s opinion did leave one issue unresolved. The Court’s opinion also applies to cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), as both of those statutes are governed by the collective action procedures of the FLSA rather than by the class action procedures of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

New Jersey Legislative Update: The Assembly “Wages” Campaign to Benefit Employees

On December 17, 2012, the New Jersey Assembly approved two pieces of wage-related legislation that each have the potential to significantly alter New Jersey State Labor Law. Assembly Bill No. 3581 (Wage Withholding) – The bill strengthens the enforcement procedures and disorderly person sanctions against employers who fail to timely pay wages, compensation or benefits to their employees and makes it easier for employees to report such employer violations.

New York Expands Scope of Permissible Deductions From Employee Wages

Effective November 6, 2012, amendments to Section 193 of the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) will expand the list of items that private sector employers may deduct from employee paychecks to include, among other things, repayment of pay advances and overpayment of wages. Employers will welcome this amendment to the current version of the law, which limits permissible deductions only to those made for United States bonds, insurance premiums, pension contributions, charitable donations, and payments due to labor organizations (such as union dues).

Third Circuit Establishes Test for Determining “Joint Employer” Liability Under the FLSA

A recent Third Circuit decision, In re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation, addresses the circumstances under which a parent company will be liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) as a “joint employer” of employees of the parent’s subsidiaries. The Third Circuit’s opinion gives concrete guidance to employers confronted by the broad definition of “employer” set forth in the FLSA’s regulations, providing a standard for assessing joint employer liability. (The FLSA defines an employer as “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee.”) Although the standard announced by the Third Circuit is by no means a bright-line test, it does provide fair notice to employers of the factors that will determine joint employer status.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against OT Pay for Pharmaceutical Salespeople

In a major victory for pharmaceutical companies, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that company sales representatives who promote their employer’s products to doctors and hospitals are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In doing so, the Court resolved a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeal over the scope of the “outside salesman” exemption to the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. The Court’s holding in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. regarding the scope of this exemption has provided much needed clarity to pharmaceutical companies and employers with similar types of sales forces who have relied – and hope to continue to rely – on the exemption.

Seventh Circuit Applies FLSA’s Administrative Exemption to Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that two pharmaceutical companies did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime to their sales representatives, concluding that the FLSA’s “administrative exemption” from the statute’s overtime requirements was applicable to these employees. Although the Court’s opinion focused on the job duties of pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs), the Court’s analysis of the general scope of the administrative exemption may prove useful to employers in other industries.

Third Circuit Opens the Door for “Hybrid” Wage & Hour Claims in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands

On March 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision in Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp. which dramatically alters the landscape for wage and hour litigation for employers operating in the jurisdictions within the Third Circuit, i.e., in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Specifically, the Third Circuit ruled that the procedures for litigating a class action alleging state wage and hour violations is not “inherently incompatible” with the procedures for litigating a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). As a result, courts in these jurisdictions may well see a wave of hybrid class/collective actions alleging wage and hour violations under both the FLSA and the corresponding state wage and hour laws in the same complaint.

Healthcare System and its CEO Held Not Liable by New York District Court for Wage Claims at Single Hospital in the Hospital System

The issue of whether a hospital system (operating over 25 facilities) and its Chief Executive Officer can be held liable for wage claims by workers employed at a single entity within the system was decided by the Eastern District of New York in Wolman v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc. Applying traditional tests to assess “joint employer” liability, the District Court concluded that plaintiffs did not plead the basic elements in the complaint to hold the hospital system and its CEO liable for alleged unpaid wages. The Court reached a similar conclusion regarding several underlying claims — failure to compensate employees for meal periods and for time spent pre- and post-shift — based on plaintiffs’ inadequate pleadings.

NJ Department of Labor Re-Adopts Inside Sales Exemption

Effective February 21, 2012, the inside salesperson exemption was re-adopted by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) as part of the Administrative Exemption contained in New Jersey’s wage and hour laws. When the NJDOL adopted the so-called “white collar” exemptions for Administrative, Executive, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer employees as contained in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in September 2011, it eliminated this long-recognized exemption. As we previously reported, the NJDOL later admitted that the elimination of this exemption was inadvertent and proposed regulations to reinstate it.