On November 5, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) published a proposal to revise regulations governing the fluctuating workweek method of calculating overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This method of calculating overtime may apply if certain conditions are met. These conditions include that the employees paid under this method work fluctuating hours, and they and their employers agree that the employees are paid fixed salary for all hours worked plus an overtime premium. There are very specific requirements for utilizing this method, but utilizing the method in a compliant manner can be complicated due to the need to calculate the regular rate of pay for every week in which the employee works more than 40 hours. Additionally, some state laws prohibit use of this method.
Effective October 1, 2019, Region VII OSHA (Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Iowa) announced a combination of Regional Emphasis Programs, along with state-led local emphasis programs.
The U.S. Department of Labor/Wage and Hour Division has continued its practice of issuing opinion letters. It recently issued an opinion letter that addresses the question of whether an employee may take FMLA leave to attend a Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) meeting to discuss a child’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”). See DOL Opinion Letter FMLA2019-2-A.
In the summer of 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) made headlines when Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta resigned. President Trump then nominated Eugene Scalia for the position, and Mr. Scalia was sworn in as Secretary of Labor on September 30. In recent months, the Senate also confirmed Cheryl Stanton as Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division.
On September 24, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued the final rule (the “New OT Rules”) that updates and revises the regulations which govern the exemptions from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Employers should carefully review the New OT Rules and the explanatory commentary. See Final Rule Announcement. The New OT Rules are set to become effective on January 1, 2020.
A recent Minnesota Supreme Court opinion demonstrates why employers should proceed with caution if they are considering whether to implement “split-day plans” or any other complicated pay practices that are seemingly authorized by the federal wage and hour laws. See In re Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc. d/b/a Baywood Home Care, Case No. A17-1821, 2019 WL 4456081 (Minn. 2019). Specifically, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the employer was liable for $1.1 million dollars in back pay and liquidated damages because it violated the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (“MFLSA”) by failing to pay employees overtime following implementation of a split-day plan.
As previously discussed on Spencer Fane Human Resource Solutions, an employer can lawfully require its employees to sign individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers as a term and condition of their employment. See Employee Class Action Waivers Held Enforceable (May 22, 2018). However, even if individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers are not, as a general rule, unlawful under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), can an employer require its employees to sign such an agreement after a collective or class action lawsuit has already been filed against it? The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) recently said yes in Cordúa Restaurants, Inc., Case 16-CA-160901 (August 14, 2019).
All companies and organizations with Minnesota-based employees must update their employment policies and practices due to recent state law changes going into effect on July 1, 2019. These updates are necessary due to the Minnesota Legislature’s passage of a law imposing new recordkeeping and notice requirements intended to protect all employees working in Minnesota. These new requirements are catching many employers off guard due to the lack of publicity for the new law and the short period to achieve compliance.
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court held that filing a charge of discrimination is not a “jurisdictional” prerequisite to filing suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Fort Bend County v. Davis, Slip Op. No. 18-525 (June 3, 2019). Although this case deals with what sounds like an obscure legal issue, it is of great practical importance to employers. In short, it means that employers defending against claims of discrimination under Title VII must diligently assert all procedural defenses they may have as early as possible. Otherwise, a failure to assert a defense may allow the plaintiff-employee’s claim to go forward, even if the employee has not technically complied with Title VII’s mandatory charge-filing procedures.
The Supreme Court has further closed the window for employees to pursue class-wide claims against their employers in arbitration. In 2010 the Supreme Court ruled a court may not compel arbitration on a class-wide basis when the arbitration agreement is “silent” on the issue. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010). Nine years later, presented with an arbitration agreement that, instead of silent, was “ambiguous” regarding the availability of class arbitration, the high court has again demonstrated its preference for individual arbitration. In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, Case No. 17-988 (slip opinion April 24, 2019), the Court held that ambiguity cannot provide the basis for finding consent to participate in class arbitration.