Posted by marykeating on August 27, 2010 under Wage and hour issues | 
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires most workers to earn at least minimum wage, and for non-exempt workers to earn overtime pay. Some workers have been completely exempt from protection under this law, however. Until 1974 there was no set limit on hours or minimum pay for live-in workers such as housekeepers or nannies. But even after they were finally included in the law, live-in workers were still exempt from overtime, and companions for the elderly or the ill were not covered by the law at all.
New York has passed a law expanding the rights of domestic workers, entitling them to overtime after 44 hours for a live-in worker, after 40 hours for others, and mandating one day off per week. The Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights also requires vacation time after a year of service, and extends the sexual harassment law to live-in employees. (Under federal law, the employer would not be liable in any event unless he or she had 15 full-time employees.)
Other states may follow New York’s lead, as news reports of abusive conditions for servants proliferate. Once an employee accepts both the domestic duties and a place to stay, the influence from the outside world can shrink.
Posted by marykeating on April 29, 2010 under Federal wage and hour law, Pending legislation |
I’ve discussed misclassification of employees before. The issue comes up when an employer decides to treat a worker as an independent contractor when the person actually qualifies as an employee. The savings to the employer include worker’s compensation premiums, unemployment insurance premiums, the employer share of the social security and medicare taxes, and, often, the cost of fringe benefits. In addition, an employee has protections under various non-discrimination laws which usually do not apply to independent contractors.
Congress now has before it a new version of The Employee Misclassification Prevention Act. It was introduced last week, and is expected to get a favorable hearing.
The law would add enforcement teeth to the Fair Labor Standards Act. One provision adds a presumption that someone receiving money for the performance of work is an employee, unless the employer has maintained records related to the classification and the hours worked and wages paid. In addition, the misclassified employee will be entitled to doubled liquidated damages for that violation. In other words, the amount recoverable by the misclassified employee could be triple the unpaid or underpaid wages, as is the case in state law.
Maryland is targeting specific industries, such as the landscaping industry, believed to have rampant violations. The new federal bill requires the Department of Labor to engage in targeted audites of industries the department finds to have a frequent incidence of misclassification.
Posted by marykeating on March 23, 2010 under Federal wage and hour law, retaliation |
The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide a case of critical importance to retaliation claims under the federal wage law, the Fair Labor Standards Act. The request to the Supreme Court presented one question for review:
Is an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3)?
Anti-retaliation laws give powerful protection for employees who either complain about their own discriminatory treatment, or someone else’s. Often the proof available to establish sexual harassment, for example, is too disputed for the plaintiff to win, but the employer’s retaliatory reaction is crystal clear.
For historical reasons the language of the Fair Labor Standards Act is different. That law dates from the Great Depression, while the Civil Rights Acts from the 60s, 70s, and 80s broadened the language defining retaliation.
In the case before the Supreme Court, a Wisconsin factory worker complained to his supervisor and to the company’s human resources department that the company’s location of time clocks was illegal. The placement of the clocks led to employees not being paid for time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing and Kevin Kasten warned his company, using the company’s reporting procedures, that it was acting illegally. He was warned, suspended and fired. The company lost in the trial court but convinced the appeals court that oral complaints cannot be “filed,” as required by the statute. 
The Supreme Court accepts very few cases every year, but one of its major criteria is whether there is a “split” in the Circuits, meaning that appellate courts of equal stature interpret the same law in opposite ways. This issue has split the Circuits, with many agreeing that to “file” a complaint does not require a piece of paper.
It is never safe to guess why the Supreme Court takes on a case, or how the case will come out. Still, it will be helpful to get this issue settled. If the Court upholds the Seventh Circuit, and permits retaliation for oral complaints of wage violations, the outcome will likely be more retaliatory firings, but also perhaps more union campaigns to combat the perceived unfairness, and more employees complaining in writing or to the Department of Labor when they believe there are wage and hour missteps.
Posted by marykeating on September 2, 2009 under Collective rights, Federal wage and hour law, Maryland wage law, Wage and hour issues |
Did you see this, or hear it on NPR? A new study shows that many minimum wage workers are denied wages they have earned. The study surveyed workers in the most populous three cities, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It found frequent, ongoing violations of the wage and hour laws, with the worst offenders in these industries: apparel and textile manufacturing, personal and repair services, and in private households. Illegal practices included paying a wage lower than the minimum wage, forcing workers to work off the clock, and denying overtime pay. Some of these violations are easier to hide when employers pay a flat daily or weekly rate to the employees, no matter how many hours are required.
In addition to the type of industry, the study identified several other factors that linked more strongly with wage violations. Not too surprisingly, the rate of violations are higher for employers paying by cash, as opposed to company check. Smaller employers are also more likely to pay their employees too little. Finally, those companies with a package of benefits were more likely to abide by the wage laws.
The study’s authors concluded that
“Employers that offer health benefits, provide paid time off, and give regular raises are following a business model where investing in workers leads to greater productivity, lower turnover, and other benefits for the company.”
Page 38
What to do about a violation
I have seen an increase in complaints about employers denying an employee’s last paycheck, and keeping poor records, leading to denial of overtime pay. The employer has an obligation to keep records of employee hours worked, and has the burden of proof to disprove an overtime or minimum wage claim. Still, courts have difficulty with the concept that the plaintiff worker should not have to prove his claim, and often that burden of proof is not applied correctly. Employees who witness wage issues should keep a careful daily log of their work hours, and make written complaints when they are not paid.
The Maryland wage and hour division is no longer unstaffed, and will pursue claims against employers. If an employee cannot get satisfaction, contact a lawyer. Although some of these claims are not large, state law permits a court to triple the damages for a failure to pay wages without a legitimate dispute, and allows reasonable attorney’s fees. Also, if there is one violation, chances are good that many employees are being underpaid, increasing the chances that a lawyer will take the case. The Fair Labor Standards Act also permits court access to enforce wage and overtime claims.
