Source: http://www.elinfonet.com/fedarticles/9/20
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:04:46+00:00

Document:
On Sunday, November 4, 2018, at 2:00 a.m., daylight saving time will end. This World War I–era practice of turning back the clock one hour in the fall became a federal law in the United States when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Uniform Time Act in 1966. The jury is still out on whether “falling back” is beneficial. Claims that it helps to conserve energy are dubious. Most people probably don’t get an extra hour of sleep that night. And, the time change doesn’t actually increase the number of hours of sunlight per day. However, it does present a good opportunity for employers to examine their timekeeping practices with regard to nonexempt employees.
Employers currently face a patchwork of state and local “fair workweek” laws that are difficult to navigate. While federal lawmakers have recently stepped into the fray with their own proposals, seeking to establish more consistent nationwide protections, these proposals are unlikely to become law anytime soon. In the meantime, employers should stay apprised of the varying legal protections in order to ensure compliance.
Affirming a district court order dismissing a putative class action, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Taco Bell’s policy of requiring employees to eat employer-discounted meals in the restaurant does not convert the meal period into “on duty” time such that the meal period becomes compensable under California law. Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corporation, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19825 (9th Cir. July 18, 2018).
Yesterday, the Department of Labor (DOL) under the Trump administration issued its first wage-hour opinion letters. Two of these opinion letters may be of general interest to employers and concern issues of (1) when an employee’s travel time must be compensated as hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and (2) when break time taken by employees for medical reasons (protected by the FMLA) must be compensated under the FLSA.
Executive Summary: The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) issued two opinion letters today, April 12, 2018. One opinion addressed when employers must pay employees for travel time away from their homes and the second dealt with compensability of rest breaks covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Essentially, the DOL stated that employers are not required to pay for travel time where an employee has no regular working hours if the employer uses one of the permissible methods for identifying the employee’s normal working hours in determining whether travel time is compensable. In another opinion, the DOL addressed the issue of FMLA-protected employees who need fifteen-minute breaks every hour. The DOL concluded that such large, frequent break times were non-compensable under both the FLSA and the FMLA because the breaks predominantly benefitted the employee. It noted, however, that these FMLA-protected employees must be compensated for break time provided to all employees, such as two fifteen-minute breaks per day.
Dear Littler: What Does Our Company Need To Do Before We Begin Using Biometric Timeclocks?
Dear Littler: We are going to replace the punch-card timeclocks in our U.S. facilities with timeclocks that allow employees to “clock in” each day using their fingerprint. I’ve read about a flood of recently filed class action litigation against companies that collected biometric information and understand that many of these cases have been filed against employers that use biometric timeclocks. Can we go ahead and roll out the timeclocks? Or is there something more that we need to do?
Concluding that the unstructured time spent by the plaintiffs between arriving at the oil refinery and the beginning of their shifts was not “integral and indispensable” to their duties erecting scaffolds at the refinery, the Fifth Circuit held that this time was not compensable under the FLSA. Bridges v. Empire Scaffold, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22520 (5th Cir. Nov. 9, 2017).
In a decision rendered on November 9, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that an employer was not liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for failing to compensate its employees for pre-shift wait time.
We have recently focused upon the growing number of federal court decisions under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act that have given legal weight to carefully-crafted, well-maintained employer policies requiring employees to report all of their worktime. Several such courts have relied upon the principle that workers can recover FLSA-required wages for alleged off-the-clock work only if the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the work.
As Hurricane Harvey continues to wreak havoc on Houston, Texas, and surrounding areas, undoubtedly, many businesses have been damaged or destroyed, while others have closed temporarily for safety and security reasons. These businesses may remain closed, or operate with limited hours, for days, weeks, or possibly months. When such closures occur as a result of nature’s forces, what are an employer’s obligations to continue paying its employees?
The City of Chicago lacked either actual or constructive knowledge that members of the Chicago Police Department were performing after-hours work on their smartphones, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled, affirming a trial court’s earlier ruling that the City was not liable for this work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allen v. City of Chicago, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14230 (7th Cir. Aug. 3, 2017). The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Q. Our company would like to enter a team in a local 5K charity race to do some good for the community and provide some positive PR for the company. Do we have to pay employees for time spent in this activity?
What Activities Do You "Pay For"?
ABC Corporation sometimes conducts in-house, during-the-workday, performance-improvement training for its employees. Its Policy Manual includes a sentence saying, "The Company pays for the time employees spend in work-related training."
Inclement Weather FAQs: Who Gets Pay for a Snow Day?
As winter progresses, employers may find themselves monitoring the weather and wondering how to handle numerous operational headaches. Should a worksite close? If so: when, and for how long? Who can work from home, and who must be paid for what time? The kids may be hoping for a snow day, but employers know that winter weather creates a host of complications, including dangerous commutes and school closings, as well as delivery and service delays.
We have written previously about how important the "workweek" concept is in complying with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum-wage and overtime requirements.
Time clock rounding is a longstanding employer practice whereby employers round employee starting and stopping times to the nearest five minutes, or to the nearest one-tenth or quarter of an hour. Is the practice legal? For over 50 years, a federal regulation has authorized the practice, but until recently, no federal appellate court had endorsed the practice. In May of 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that an employer’s time clock rounding procedures complied with federal law in Corbin v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership, 821 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2016).
Much like a mom doesn't have to parcel out her kids' ice cream into servings that are exactly equal, an employer doesn't have to ensure that its policy of rounding employees' time stamps evens out perfectly, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Back in December, we wrote about a case involving the Chicago Police Department, in which officers alleged that they were owed additional overtime for time spent responding to calls and messages on their Blackberry devices, but which they failed to report in accordance with Police Department procedures. The court ruled for the City, holding that while the officers may have worked hours for which they weren't paid, the City was not liable because it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the uncompensated work. It was a clear win for the City and for employers in general. But before anyone gets carried away, they should read a subsequent decision from another judge in the Northern District of Illinois that illustrates the limits of the idea that employers are not on the hook for work they don't know about.
Another federal appellate court, this time the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (with jurisdiction over Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas) has rejected an employee's claim to have been entitled to federal Fair Labor Standards Act overtime compensation for unreported hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Readers will recall our 2012 post discussing a decision from the Tenth Circuit saying that, under the right circumstances, an employee's failure to report all hours worked can be fatal to such an "off the clock" claim.
If a tree falls in the forest but there is no one around to hear, does it make a sound? If a non-exempt worker answers an e-mail message after hours on her Blackberry but fails to put in for overtime, has she performed compensable work? While I'm not aware of any firm legal authority on the first question, a recent ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois offers a detailed and instructive analysis of the second.
Q. We keep track of work hours for non-exempt employees using an electronic timekeeping system. For our exempt employees, we really have no records of how many hours they are working each day or week. Are we required to? Even if it's not required, should we?
Joining similar decisions applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Portal-to-Portal Act in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, Senior District Judge Terrence F. McVerry of the Western District of Pennsylvania recently held that time spent attending allegedly mandatory pre-shift safety meetings was not compensable under the FLSA because those safety meetings were neither “principal activities” nor “integral and indispensable” to the mining employees’ principal activities. Bonds v. GMS Mine Repair & Maint., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127769 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2015).
Applying the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that firefighters are not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for time spent moving certain necessary gear to and from temporary work assignments at fire stations other than their “home” stations. Balestrieri v. Menlo Park Fire Prot. Dist., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15785 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015).
The best defense for employers confronted with claims of “off-the-clock”, (i.e., unrecorded) work under the FLSA are accurate contemporaneous time records created by employees based on clearly communicated time keeping practices. The effectiveness of such records was recently demonstrated in Roberts v. Advocate Health Care, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103631 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2015).
Last month, Georgia became the latest state to pass legislation governing the payment of wages via “payroll cards.” Gov. Nathan Deal signed the new law on May 5, 2015. Prior to the passing of this bill, the payment of wages via payroll cards in Georgia was neither explicitly lawful nor unlawful. Any open questions about that issue have now been put to rest by the new legislation.
Although most employers are aware that an employee’s time spent working is generally compensable, the question of what actually constitutes compensable “working time” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is an area fraught with uncertainty and the subject of substantial litigation. Indeed, in December 2014, in the case of Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that employees’ time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings was not compensable working time. If the amount of litigation surrounding this issue is any indication, determining whether employee activity connected to employment is compensable is an area where mistakes are easily and commonly made by employers.
Last summer, we highlighted an example of how good recordkeeping practices can result in a favorable decision. In the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan case, the employer successfully defended an “unauthorized overtime” claim where an employee worked off the clock against Kaiser’s policies and without its knowledge. A recent Eleventh Circuit decision demonstrates the limits of relying solely on policies as a defense in these types of cases.
This past spring (here and here), I discussed rounding time clock punches (usually automatically with a time clock system) at the beginning and end of a shift. To recap briefly, rounding is the practice of adjusting time clock punch times within specific bounds. For example, if your employees punch in for work at 7:57, 8:01, and 8:02, your rounding rules may treat all of those punches as occurring at 8:00 a.m. for payroll purposes.
Employers should be relieved to know that they are not required to pay employees for security check time. In a unanimous opinion issued Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held that workers are not entitled to be paid for time spent waiting for and undergoing post-shift anti-theft screenings under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as amended by the Portal to Portal Act.
Executive Summary: On December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision favorable to employers significantly limiting the types of preliminary and postliminary activities that are compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the Court held that the time spent by warehouse workers waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings before leaving for the day is not compensable.
On December 9, 2014, in a 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that employees’ time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13-433, 2014 WL 6885951 (2014).
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that employees are not entitled to compensation for time spent waiting for and participating in mandatory security screenings at the end of their shifts. The decision reached by the Supreme Court is a victory for the increasing number of employers nationwide who screen employees to prevent theft. In addition, the Court provided much-needed guidance in an area of wage and hour law that has historically been the subject of litigation: when does the compensable workday begin and end? Integrity Staffing v. Busk.
On Tuesday, December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the time workers spend waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, the security screenings at issue were not the principal activities the employees were employed to perform and were not “integral and indispensable” to those activities. Thus, the screenings were “noncompensable postliminary activities.” In arriving at this conclusion, the Court provided some much-needed clarification on the “integral and indispensable” test, holding “that an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform—and thus compensable under the FLSA—if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.” Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 13–433 (December 9, 2014).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the time non-exempt employees spent in connection with an end-of-workday security screening before leaving the premises did not count as worktime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, it said, the time so spent was non-compensable "postliminary" activity under the federal Portal-to-Portal Act.
In October, we profiled Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, a case asking whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Warehouse workers sued Integrity Staffing under the FLSA for uncompensated time they were required to spend in lengthy security screenings (lasting up to 25 minutes) at the end of their shifts during their assignments to work in Amazon warehouses. At the time, we suggested that it would be “hard to envision a result different” from last term’s Sandifer v. U.S. Steel case. This prediction came true, but from a unanimous Supreme Court, rather than a sharply divided one. The Court held that the employees at Integrity Staffing Solutions facilities in Nevada could not claim compensation for the time spent going through security screenings aimed at protecting against theft because these activities were not integral and indispensable to their principal duties.
With the German victory in the 2014 World Cup now in the books and baseball finishing up its All Star break (Go Tigers—Cabrera with a 2-run HR, Scherzer with a W!), I wanted to turn my attention this week to the latest push by the White House to encourage change in the private sector workplace, specifically alternative or flexible work schedules.
When is a Commute Not a Commute? In a Company Car (Well, Maybe)!
In my last post, I outlined the “normal” commuting case after Congress passed the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act (ECFA). The ECFA clarified the applicability of the Portal-to-Portal Act to the payment of wages to employees who use employer-provided vehicles. Clarification was necessary because of two conflicting opinion letters on the topic issued by the DOL in 1994 and 1995, respectively. As I mentioned earlier this week, the ECFA made commuting in a company car non-compensable only if the use of the employer’s vehicle was (1) “for travel that is within the normal commuting area for the employer's business or establishment;” and (2) “subject to an agreement on the part of the employer and the employee or representative of such employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 254(a).
If only “Heigh-Ho” from Disney’s Snow White had been written sometime in 1938, rather than 1937, maybe my FLSA-influenced version would have had a chance.
In my last two posts (here and here), I’ve discussed rounding at the beginning and end of a shift, but what about rounding for meal breaks?
In my last post, I discussed how the FLSA approaches the “rounding” of time. In short, rounding is simply the practice of adjusting time clock punch times within specific bounds. For example, if your employees punch in for work at 7:57, 8:01, and 8:02, your rounding rules may treat all of those punches as occurring at 8:00 a.m. for payroll purposes. Here are a few pointers that I mentioned would help you avoid some of the risks associated with rounding your employees’ time entries.
Donning/Doffing Personal Protective Items: What About Mealtime?
On Monday, March 3, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to decide whether a company was required to pay overtime compensation to its workers for the time they spent passing through a security clearance at the end of each shift. In a case on appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the workers claimed that their employer violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws by failing to pay them for the time they spent in security screenings that the company used to prevent theft.
The Supreme Court has decided an important wage-and-hour case for employers with unionized workforces. In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp, a collective-bargaining agreement provided that time spent changing clothes at the beginning and end of each work day was noncompensable. Members of the collective-bargaining unit sought a ruling that the “donning” and “doffing” of certain protective gear did not qualify as “changing clothes” and thus required wage payments for the time spent in such activities.
On January 27, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the time spent by employees donning and doffing (putting on and taking off) certain protective gear is not compensable under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This ruling will significantly impact the ability of employees to seek compensation for the donning and doffing of certain items in the unionized setting. Additionally, the Court made comments about the de minimis doctrine which could well impact employers in the nonunionized environment. Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp.
On January 27, in a very limited ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employer was not required to pay union employees for the time it takes them to put on and take off protective gear when their collective bargaining agreement did not provide for compensation for that time. After analyzing whether the workers’ protective gear qualifies as “clothes,” the Court held that, under the union contract between the parties, the time that the employees spent donning and doffing their protective gear was not compensable under section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The decision, which was unanimous (except that Justice Sotomayor did not join in footnote 7), affirms the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2012 ruling and reinforces employers’ ability to negotiate the compensability of such activities through a collective bargaining agreement. For nonunion employers, this ruling does not change the donning and doffing rules under the FLSA. Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417, Supreme Court of the United States (January 27, 2014).
Sitting down to dinner but still have a long to-do list from the office? Hear your work e-mails pinging as you watch the game? Not a problem that you can’t handle with your smartphone or tablet. Whatever your take on this 24/7 connectivity, it is undeniable that the proliferation of mobile devices has made working away from the office easier and perhaps expected by employers (and clients). While such a policy may result in an increase in productivity, it can also create a legal risk for employers, namely, unexpected claims for overtime pay.
Q. A salaried, exempt employee who recently returned from a week of unpaid FMLA leave claims that he is entitled to be paid his full salary for entire week because he responded to a number of work-related e-mails and telephone calls while he was out. Do we have to pay?
Can A Paid Break Become Unpaid?
Acme Corporation's longstanding policy is to give non-exempt employees two 10-minute rest breaks each workday. It treats these breaks as paid worktime. Management recently realized that, over the years, most of the employees have gradually come to be spending 15 to 20 minutes or even a little longer on each break. Acme sent out a memo reminding everyone that the breaks are limited to 10 minutes, but it had no effect. Could Acme start considering the over-10-minute extensions to be unpaid time?
Regular readers may have noticed a decline in the frequency of our updates around the end of the year. That's because, in addition to the usual holiday and year-end craziness, my wife and I welcomed a new baby on the day after Christmas. As I get back into the swing of work and blogging, I thought this might be a perfect time to review the federal requirements regarding break time for nursing mothers.
The best answer to last week's Quick Quiz is, "No", it is not likely that Alan's time between calls would be found to be worktime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
A recent Time magazine item by Dan Schawbel of Millennial Branding discusses what he sees as a growing trend to abandon the traditional on-premises, 9-to-5 workday in favor of permitting employees to "work odd hours, telecommute and otherwise tweak the usual 9 to 5 grind." Schawbel says that Generation Y employees (those born between 1982 and 1993) are spearheading this because they prioritize workplace flexibility so highly. He warns that employers who fail to offer the option to telecommute, to work atypical hours, and to use technology to facilitate alternative work patterns run the risk of turning away a group of prospective workers projected to comprise 75% of the global workforce by 2025.
On December 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Kellar v. Summit Seating Inc., ____ F.3d ____ (7th Cir. 2011), that a former employee who claimed she worked 15 to 45 minutes every day without pay before the start of her scheduled shift failed to make out a claim for back pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Indiana Wage Payment Statute. In reaching this decision, the court found that there was no evidence that her employer knew or had reason to know she was performing this work.
On Sunday, November 6 at 2:00 a.m., daylight saving time will end and in most states clocks will be set back one hour. As it does every year, this change presents a challenge for employers whose non-exempt employees are working during that time.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a settlement with Hilton Reservations Worldwide, LLC, in which the company agreed to pay $715,507 in minimum wages and overtime pay to 2,645 current and former customer service employees in Texas, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania. The DOL determined after an audit that the company failed to pay workers for pre-shift activities such as booting up their computers, launching necessary programs, and reading work-related e-mails.
A smart phone is now as much a piece of your office life as a desk, laptop or employee handbook. Anyone can use their BlackBerry or iPhone to stay current on news and events, update social media status and check their email from any location with a signal.
The answer to our September 23 Quick Quiz is, "None of it".
Ellen is a non-exempt employee who works in Bigtown for The Acme Corporation. She is assigned to hand-out brochures at TAC's booth at a tradeshow at a hotel in Salestown on Monday. She will stay in the same hotel where the show will be held. Her instructions are that she has to be at the booth location beginning at 7 a.m. on Monday, when she will help set up the booth.
Overstaying Rest Breaks: Paid Time, Or Not?
Our company provides remote access to e-mail for all employees, and some of our hourly employees carry iPhones and Blackberries with access to their work e-mail. Most non-exempt employees only work during regular business hours, but some will occasionally check and respond to e-mail after hours or on weekends. Do we need to pay employees for this time? If so, how do we track it?
The question of whether to pay employees for putting on protective gear has plagued employers for years. While the federal courts are divided over this issue, at least five Appellate Courts â€“ the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh and now the Tenth Circuits â€“ have held that personal protective equipment is included within the meaning of â€œclothesâ€ under Section 203(o) of the FLSA, and thus not compensable.
How Is Pay Figured When The Workweek Changes?
Our last post raised questions about how to calculate a non-exempt employee's pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for the timeframe during which the employer adopts a different workweek.
The Department of Labor has entered the digital age with a splash, and has announced the launch of its first application for smartphones. That app is a timesheet to help employees independently track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers. Individuals also can access a glossary, contact information and materials about wage laws through links to the Web pages of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division. According to the DOLâ€™s news release, users will be able to add comments on any information related to their work hours; view a summary of work hours in a daily, weekly and monthly format; and email the summary of work hours and gross pay as an attachment. The app is free and currently is compatible with the iPhone and iPod Touch. The DOL has said that it will explore updates that could enable similar versions for other smartphone platforms (Android and BlackBerry), and other pay features currently not provided for, such as tips, commissions, and bonuses.
The U.S. Department of Labor today announced the launch of its first application for smartphones, a timesheet to help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed. Available in English and Spanish, users conveniently can track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers.
How many hours have you worked this week? Check your phone.
The Department of Labor has entered the digital age with a splash, and has announced the launch of its first application for smartphones. That app is a timesheet to help employees independently track regular work hours, break time and any overtime hours for one or more employers. Individuals also can access a glossary, contact information and materials about wage laws through links to the Web pages of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division. According to the DOLâ€™s news release, users will be able to add comments on any information related to their work hours; view a summary of work hours in a daily, weekly and monthly format; and email the summary of work hours and gross pay as an attachment.
A police officer has sued the City of Chicago (on behalf of himself and others) seeking pay for time spent dealing with work-related phone calls, voice-mails, e-mails, text messages, and work orders via BlackBerry® devices and similar "personal digital assistants." The officer contends that these activities entitle the group to an award of overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The question often arises whether the time spent “donning and doffing” clothes and personal protective equipment is compensable time. Federal courts are divided over this issue. In particular, the courts disagree about the meaning of “clothes” as used in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Under this Section, certain employees do not have to be compensated for changing their “clothes.” Courts interpret the meaning of clothes differently. While some courts have held that it includes both uniforms and personal protective equipment, other courts have held that personal protective equipment is not included. The Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, and recently refused to review a lower court’s ruling that personal protective equipment is included within Section 203(o). Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods Inc. While the Supreme Court declined to find a split in the Appellate Courts, the reality remains that federal courts interpret the scope of the exclusion under Section 203(o) differently.
Is PDA Use Relevant As To Exempt Employees?
Our last post provoked an inquiry about what impact, if any, after-hours or off-day use of a BlackBerry® or another personal digital assistant might have with respect to employees whom an employer treats as exempt under one of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's executive, administrative, or professional exemptions. The U.S. Labor Department's exemption regulations for these so-called "white collar" employees require that most such employees be paid on a "salary basis" in order to be exempt. This is where the problem might arise.
Latest DOL Opinion On Donning and Doffing, Not So Fast - 6th Circuit Says.
Although it may no longer be true, donning and doffing cases at one time were clearly the big ticket FLSA collective action. And for those still fighting those fights who have been concerned about the thumb that the DOL put on the scale with their June 16 Administrator's Interpretation (No. 2010-2), which reversed course from two earlier opinion letters issued this decade (yes, Obama administration vs. Bush administration), you now have some very favorable authority from yeseterday's decision by the 6th Circuit in Franklin v. Kellogg Co. (6th Cir. 8/31/10) [pdf].
Chicago Officer Sues Over After-Hours PDA Use.
A police officer has sued the City of Chicago (on behalf of himself and others) seeking pay for time spent dealing with work-related phone calls, voice-mails, e-mails, text messages, and work orders via BlackBerry® devices and similar "personal digital assistants". The officer contends that these activities entitle the group to an award of overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
DOL Addresses Meaning Of "Clothes" Under FLSA.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently clarified the definition of "clothes" under Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Section 3(o) provides that time spent "changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday" is excluded from compensable time under the FLSA if the time is excluded from compensable time pursuant to "the express terms or by custom or practice" under a collective bargaining agreement. The DOL now has concluded that this exemption "does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job."
Update: Court Might Have Rejected Donning/Doffing "Administrator Interpretation" Without Citing It. A Subtle Dig?
We previously posted about the U.S. Labor Department's Administrator Interpretation saying that unionized employers cannot exclude time spent donning and doffing certain protective equipment from compensable "hours worked," even if an applicable union contract or practice treats the time as unpaid. On August 2, 2010, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that unionized workers at a Kraft Foods plant could sue under Wisconsin state law for wages relating to their time spent donning and doffing certain safety gear and other items at work. They made their claim even though Kraft and the union had earlier agreed that this time would be non-compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 203(o). Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 16 W.H. Cases2d (BNA) 711 (7th Cir. 2010).
Are You Saving On Wage Costs By "Rounding" Worktime?
For many years, some employers have chosen to "round" non-exempt employees' worktime in computing wages. This is emerging as another recurring claim in the continuing flood of lawsuits filed under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. If you believe that ending such a procedure would cause your wage costs to increase, this is a danger signal.
DOL Issued its Second Administrator’s Interpretation that Alters the Definition of “Clothes” Under the FLSA.
The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor (DOL) issued its Second Administrator’s Interpretation addressing what is considered “clothes” for purposes of determining compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This most recent Interpretation reverses several opinion letters by stating that the exemption for donning or doffing clothes under Section 3(o) applies only to apparel and not several types of protective safety equipment. The Administrator also concluded that even though employers do not have to compensate employees for donning or doffing clothes if they are exempt under Section 3(o), these activities could be principal activities and trigger the beginning or end of the workday, resulting in compensable time.
DOL Reverses Its Position On Donning And Doffing "Protective Equipment" In Union Setting.
In a pronouncement applicable to unionized workplaces, this week the U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division issued an Administrator's Interpretation stating that unionized employers cannot treat time spent donning and doffing certain "protective equipment" as unpaid time, even if an applicable union contract or practice treats the time as unpaid. This reverses DOL's previous positions published in opinion letters in 2002 and 2007. The new position revives DOL's earlier position in opinion letters from 1997-2001.
Depending on who you ask, PDAs are either the greatest workplace innovation since desktop computers, or the bane of an employee's existence. In today's wireless environment, BlackBerrys, iPhones, and other handheld devices increasingly provide employees with round-the-clock access to email from remote locations. While wireless gadgets allow us to maximize productivity in competitive economic times, they may also give rise to overtime, minimum wage and other wage payment claims.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.