Source: https://slphrbenefitsupdate.com/category/employers/executive-compensation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 06:11:30+00:00

Document:
Employers frustrated with the current Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) rules defining what forms of payment employers must count as part of an employee’s “regular rate” when calculating overtime should evaluate and consider expressing support for the Department of Labor’s proposal announced today (March 28, 2019) to update its more than 50-year old regulations implementing the regular rate requirements under section 7(e) of FLSA in 29 C.F.R. Parts 548 and 778. Officially scheduled for publication in the May 28, 2019 Federal Register, employers and other interested persons may review the unofficial text of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) released with the Labor Department’s announcement of its proposal today. The Proposed Rule also will make substantive changes to the Labor Department’s current FLSA regulations about the treatment of “call back pay” and its base pay rules.
The FLSA generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay of at least one and one-half times the “regular rate” of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Regular rate requirements define what forms of payment employers include and exclude in the “time and one-half” calculation when determining workers’ overtime rates. The existing rules define the regular rate to include both the base hourly rate of pay and certain bonus and other compensation and perks. As the Trump Administration supports these proposed changes, employers should start evaluating their implications in anticipation of the Labor Department’s adoption of a Final Rule. At the same time, businesses supporting the rule or desiring refinements to its provisions also will want to submit comments to the Labor Department no later than the May 18 comment deadline.
Ambiguities in the current more than 50-year-old Labor Department regulations implementing the regular rate requirement rules discourage employers from offering more perks to their employees because of uncertainty about whether the perks are required to be included in the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. In many other cases, employers that mistakenly fail to include bonuses, benefits and other perks often experience the unfortunate surprise of getting nailed with unexpected back pay and penalties obligations through Labor Department audits or private litigation.
that employers may exclude pay for time that would not otherwise qualify as “hours worked,” including bona fide meal periods,from an employee’s regular rate unless an agreement or established practice indicates that the parties have treated the time as hours worked.
In addition, the Proposed Rule also would make two substantive changes to the existing regulations on “call-back pay” and to its “basic rate” regulations.
The Proposed Regulation would eliminate the current restriction in Labor Regulation §§ 778.221 and 778.222 that “call-back” pay and other payments similar to call-back pay must be “infrequent and sporadic” to be excludable from an employee’s regular rate, while maintaining that such payments must not be so regular that they are essentially prearranged.
The Proposed Rule also proposes an update the Labor Department’s “basic t rate” regulations.
total overtime compensation by more than $0.50 a week on average for overtime work weeks in the period for which the employer makes the payment.
The Proposed Regulation would change the current $0.50 limit to 40 percent of the federal minimum wage (currently $2.90.” The Labor Department is inviting comments on if 40 percent is an appropriate threshold in its request for comments on the Propsoed Regulations.
Employers commenting on the Proposed Rule also should keep in mind that its publication comes on the heals of the Labor Department’s proposal of a new Proposed Salary Threshold Rule that if adopted will increase to $679 per week the minimum salary an employee must earn to qualify for coverage by the “white collar” overtime exemption. This would effectively raise the amount an employer must pay any worker it wants to treat as exempt under the white collar overtime exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,308 annually. The adoption of this proposed Salary Threshold Rule as proposed overnight will disqualify a million plus currently salaried workers to hourly employees entitled to overtime under the FLSA.
Businesses concerned about the Proposed Rule or the Proposed Salary Threshold Rule should submit their feedback as comments to the applicable proposal during the applicable comment period. May 28 is the deadline for employers and other interested persons to submit comments of support or other input on the Proposed Rule to change the regular rate determination rules.
Whether or not the either of these proposed rule changes takes effect, U.S. businesses will want to strengthen their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.
Consider self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.
If you need more information or have questions, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. We also invite you to share your own best practices ideas and resources and join the discussions about these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions onLinkedIn.
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of management focused wage and hour and other employment, employee benefit and insurance, workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Throughout her career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline; handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns. Ms. Stamer’s experience in these matters includes supporting these organizations and their leaders on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as consulting and representing clients on ongoing compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group and, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, heavily involved in health benefit, health care, health, financial and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career, and scribe of the ABA JCEB annual Office of Civil Rights agency meeting, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive work and leadership on leading edge health care and benefit policy and operational issues. She regularly helps employer and other health benefit plan sponsors and vendors, health industry, insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health and insurance industry clients design, document and enforce plans, practices, policies, systems and solutions; manage regulatory, contractual and other legal and operational compliance; transactional and other change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation; and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.
Author of leading works on wage and hour and a multitude of labor and employment, compensation and benefits, internal controls and compliance, and risk management matters and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer also shares her thought leadership, experience and advocacy on these and other related concerns by her service in the leadership of the Solutions Law Press, Inc. Coalition for Responsible Health Policy, its PROJECT COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment, and a broad range of other professional and civic organizations including North Texas Healthcare Compliance Association, a founding Board Member and past President of the Alliance for Healthcare Excellence, past Board Member and Board Compliance Committee Chair for the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas; former Board President of the early childhood development intervention agency, The Richardson Development Center for Children (now Warren Center For Children); current Vice Chair of the ABA Tort & Insurance Practice Section Employee Benefits Committee, current Vice Chair of Policy for the Life Sciences Committee of the ABA International Section, Past Chair of the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Section, a current Defined Contribution Plan Committee Co-Chair, former Group Chair and Co-Chair of the ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits Group, past Representative and chair of various committees of ABA Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; an ABA Health Law Coordinating Council representative, former Coordinator and a Vice-Chair of the Gulf Coast TEGE Council TE Division, past Chair of the Dallas Bar Association Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Committee, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Benefits Association and others.
©2019 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author .directly. All other rights reserved.
Employers concerned about minimum wage, overtime and other liability from the Proposed Salary Threshold Rule (“Proposal”) that if adopted will increase the minimum salary for the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) “white collar” overtime exemption from $23,660 annually to $35,308 annually. If adopted as proposed, the Proposal overnight will disqualify a million plus currently salaried workers to hourly employees that their employers will be required to pay minimum wage and overtime under the FLSA. Businesses concerned about the Proposal or other burdensome minimum wage or overtime requirements under the FLSA need to tell the Labor Department about these rules burdensome effects on business.
Under currently enforced FLSA rules, employers generally must treat any employee earning less than $455 per week ($23,660 annually) as a non-exempt employee. This generally means that the employer must pay the employee at least minimum wage for regular time and must pay overtime to the worker for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Labor Department set the minimum weekly earnings level of $455 per week in 2004. The Proposal if adopted will increase the minimum required earnings an employee must earn to qualify for exemption from minimum wage and overtime rules more than $124 per week to $679 per week (equivalent to $35,308 per year).
The Department also is asking for public comment on the Proposal’s language for periodic review to update the salary threshold. An update would continue to require notice-and-comment rule making rather than calling for automatic adjustments to the salary threshold for inflation.
Businesses concerned about Proposal to increase the salary threshold or other burdensome FLSA rules or enforcement policies should seize the opportunity to provide feedback.
To start with, businesses should submit comments about the Proposed Rule electronically at www.regulations.gov as soon as possible before the 60-day comment period runs in mid-May.
Interested parties must RSVP to Janis.Reyes@sba.gov to participate. Note that while SBA reports that SBA has invited Labor Department staff, the Labor Department has not confirmed its acceptance of these invitations yet. Also, because comments expressed during these roundtables do not take the place of submitting written comments to the regulatory docket, concerned businesses should also still comment on the Proposal. However adverse feedback from business expressed at this meeting could help to motivate SBA to express opposition or other negative feedback on the Proposal.
Whether or not the Proposal takes effect, all U.S. businesses will want to strengthen their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.
If you need more information or have questions, contact the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.
Employers concerned about managing their overtime liability should review and provide prompt feedback to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would make an additional million plus American workers eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) by increasing the minimum amount an employee must earn to be eligible for treatment as FLSA exempt to $679 per week.
The minimum weekly earnings level of $455 per week was set in 2004. The proposed regulation would increase the salary threshold using current wage data projected to January 1, 2020 from $455 to $679 per week (equivalent to $35,308 per year).
The Department also is asking for public comment on the NPRM’s language for periodic review to update the salary threshold. An update would continue to require notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The NPRM maintains overtime protections for police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, nurses, and laborers including: non-management production-line employees and non-management employees in maintenance, construction and similar occupations such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, craftsmen, operating engineers, longshoremen, and construction workers. The proposal does not call for automatic adjustments to the salary threshold.
The proposal to change the salary threshold in the NPRM follows a prior attempt by the Department of raise the threshold in 2016. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas enjoined a 2016 final regulation that would have raised the threshold on November 22, 2016. Since November 6, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held in abeyance the Department’s appeal of the District Court’s ruling pending further rulemaking by the Department. In the 15 years since the District Court enjoined its 2016 final rule, the Department consistently has enforced the 2004 salary threshold level.
Employers concerned about the proposed increase in the salary threshold or other elements of the NPRM should submit comments about the proposed rule electronically at www.regulations.gov within the 60 day period following publication, in the rulemaking docket RIN 1235-AA20.
The NPRM proposing to increase the salary threshold for qualification as a FLSA-exempt employee is only one of a number of proposed rule changes that could significantly impact employer liabilities and costs.
Coupled with the Department’s continuing aggressive attacks against contract labor and other worker misclassification as well as other minimum wage, overtime and other FLSA rules, all employers should shore up the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, weigh options to clean up exposure areas, review insurance coverages and consider other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by Department, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.
Today’s diverse business environment creates a demand for businesses to think creatively about their employment relationships, including creative scheduling and pay arrangements. While many of these arrangements produce win/win solutions for both the business and its employees, businesses need to use care properly to evaluate and manage minimum wage, overtime, and other wage and hour law responsibilities under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and applicable state law.
A new Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opinion letter published December 21 illustrates this point. WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018) evaluates FLSA minimum wage and overtime compliance of one employer’s innovative strategy of paying certain hourly employees one hourly rate while the employee was working with clients and a second, lower hourly rate of pay for time that the employee spent traveling between client sites throughout the day.
In WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018), the WHD expresses reservations about whether the specific practices of the requesting employer for calculating overtime for workers paid different hourly rates for different categories of work during the same work week fulfill the FLSA overtime requirements under certain circumstances, but blessed the compliance of the practice of the employer with the FLSA minimum wage rules.
While only the employer that actually requested the ruling that resulted in the Opinion actually may rely upon the Opinion, the ruling highlights both the potential opportunity for businesses to structure innovative compensation and scheduling arrangements within the requirements of the FLSA and other laws, as well as the legal exposures that employers using innovative staffing and compensation arrangement risk by failing to appropriately manage these responsibilities.
The FLSA generally requires that employers pay covered, nonexempt employees receive at least the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) for all hours worked. See 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1). According to previously published WHD guidance, WHD will consider an employer to have fulfilled this requirement “if the employee’s total wages for the workweek divided by compensable hours equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage.” See WHD Opinion Letter FLSA2004-8NA (Aug. 12, 2004)(different pay rates for trucking company workers); WHD Field Operations Handbook § 30b02.
In addition to the requirement to pay at least the minimum wage, the FLSA also requires that covered, nonexempt employees receive overtime compensation of at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). To determine the regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating the required overtime, an employer generally divides the employee’s “remuneration for employment” (subject to the exclusions in 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)) by the total hours worked for the workweek. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.109.
In WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28 (Dec. 21, 2018), WHD addressed its views regarding a home health provider’s practice for calculating the wages due to home health aide services that traveled to home health clients’ homes, who were required to travel to different client home locations during the workday. The employer establishes different rates of pay for time spent working with clients versus time spent traveling from location to location. To calculate weekly pay, that employer multiplied an employee’s time with clients by his hourly pay rate established by the employer for time spent working with clients. The employer then divides the product by the employee’s total hours worked, which includes both the client time and the travel time. The employer guarantees that the quotient meets both federal and state minimum wage rate requirements.
Based upon the factual representations made by the home health agency, WHD ruled the employer’s compensation plan complies with the FLSA’s minimum wage requirements but expressed concern about whether the employer’s practices for calculating overtime complied with the FLSA.
Concerning the FLSA minimum wage compliance, the WHD found that the employers practice fulfilled the FLSA minimum wage requirements because even though the employee’s average hourly pay rate varied from workweek to workweek, the employer always ensured that the average hourly pay rate exceeded the FLSA’s minimum wage requirement for all hours worked.
In contrast, however, WHD expressed concern about the compliance of the employer’s compensation plan with the FLSA’s overtime requirements under certain circumstances. WHD states in the Opinion that the employer will not pay all overtime due to employees whose actual rate of pay exceeds $10 per hour if the employer always assumes a regular rate of pay of $10 per hour when calculating overtime due. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.107.
The Opinion notes that “neither an employer nor an employee may arbitrarily choose the regular rate of pay; it is an “actual fact” based on “mathematical computation.” Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., Inc., 325 U.S. 419, 424–25 (1945); 29 C.F.R. § 778.108.
On the other hand, the Opinion also states that the employer’s compensation plan would comply with the FLSA’s overtime requirements for all employees whose actual regular rates of pay are less than $10 per hour, as an employer may choose to pay an overtime premium in excess of the required amount. See, e.g., Molina v. First Line Solutions LLC, 566 F. Supp. 2d 770, 779 (N.D. Ill. 2007).
The cautionary lessons from FLSA Opinion 2018-28 echo those WHD previously has issued alerting businesses to the need to use care to properly understand and meet FLSA requirements when structuring and administering two-tier hourly pay or other innovative pay and scheduling arrangements.
The need to attend to the details of FLSA compliance when adopting and administering customized pay arrangements is further illustrated by WHD’s review of the FLSA compliance of a school district employer’s customized pay arrangement for its drivers in FLSA2004-8NA in 2004. While the WHD found issues with the FLSA compliance of the special arrangement as administered by the school district, guidance provided by the Opinion also makes clear the type of adjustments to the arrangement the employer would need to adopt and apply to continue using the arrangement in its modified form.
Specifically, FLSA 2004-8NA considered a school district’s contractually negotiated arrangement to pay its drivers pursuant to a contractual arrangement under which the employer agreed to pay regular drivers a specified hourly rate with a minimum guarantee of two hours driving time pay per route/additional assignment. The contract also provided that for an assigned trip of less than two hours, a driver that wanted to receive pay for hte minimum guaranteed time had to perform regular maintenance in the bus garage or other work as assigned by the School District to complete the two hours. Furthermore, the contract also specified that “Any regular driver may complete a voucher for payment for additional time if their morning or afternoon route exceeds his/her assigned time by one half hour or more” and that the employers only would pay additional wages for the actual added time worked to employees that worked at least 30 minutes or more without rounding to the next hour for calculating wages. Thus, an employee that worked an additional twenty-five minutes beyond his/her normal shiftwould not be compensated for the extra time worked. Meanwhile, a bus driver that returned fifty minutes past the scheduled time received pay for an additional 50 minutes of work.
WHD’s issue with the arrangement was that the rounding practices applied under the arrangement meant that the school district did not ensure that workers were paid at least the minimum wage per hour for all hours worked and might under some circumstances not properly pay overtime due to workers.
While acknowledging that Labor Regulation Section 785.47 allows employers to disregard ‘insubstantial or insignificant periods of time outside the scheduled working hours that cannot practically be precisely recorded as de minimis, WHD noted that the de minimis rule applies only where a few seconds or minutes of work are involved and where the failure to count such time is due to considerations justified by industrial realities. It does not allow an employer by contract or otherwise to arbitrarily fail to count as hours worked any part, however small, of the employee’s fixed or regular working time. Where an employer fails to pay an employee for any part of the employee’s fixed or regular working time, however small, this would be considered a violation of the FLSA.
Concerning the FLSA’s requirement that the employer pay hourly employees at least the minimum wage, WHD noted that in non-overtime workweeks or in workweeks in which the overtime provisions do not apply, WHD would consider the employer to have met the minimum wage requirement if the employee’s total wages for the workweek divided by compensable hours equal or exceed the applicable minimum wage. WHD added that this principle would apply even if the employer technically did not compensate the emploeye for time which is compensable under the FLSA.
Concerning the overtime requirements of the FLSA, however, WHD had greater reservations. As WHD noted in the 2004 Opinion, when a covered and non-exempt employee works overtime, a different rule applies. The FLSA overtime rule requires that an employer pay the employee for all hours worked at the agreed rate plus the overtime premium (one-half the regular rate) for all overtime hours. Therefore, before an employee can be said to be paid statutory overtime compensation due, the employee must first be paid all straight time wages due for all hours worked under any express or implied contract or under any applicable statute (see 29 CFR Part 778.315). As a result, WHD found that the FLSA overtime requirements would require the employer both to ensure that the employee actually was paid for each hour of straight time at the regular rate of pay plus time and a half of the regular rate of pay for each overtime hour worked.
WHD additionally noted in the 2004 Opinion that the employer also risked violation of Labor Regulation 516.2(a)(7)’s requirement that the employer maintain accurate recordkeeping of hours worked each workday and total hours worked each workweek for covered, nonexempt employees if the payroll records do not accurately record the number of hours worked in one or more of the workdays.
While other employers actually cannot rely upon either WHD Opinion Letter FLSA 2018-28, FLSA 2004-8NA, or most other WHD Opinion Letters, WHD Opinion Letters and other publishe guidance, as well as judicial precedent and the enforcement conduct by WHD provide a wealth of valuable insights for other employers about the potential FLSA opportunities and pitfalls of using variable rates of pay or other innovative compensation, scheduling and timekeeping practices for compensating hourly employees. Employers using or contemplating using innovative compensation, scheduling or recordkeeping practices should should seek assistance from experienced legal counsel with accessing and using this guidance to help reduce the risk that a proposed innovative compensation or other practice for scheduling or paying nonexempt hourly workers will trigger unanticipated FLSA or other liabilities..
Aside from using caution to properly calculate and pay overtime for workers paid different rates for different types of work, employers also need to use care to avoid other common FLSA and other wage and hour overtime violations.
With the Trump Administration U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) continuing its aggressive investigation and enforcement of minimum wage, overtime and other Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other wage and hour laws it used to recover more than $1.2 billion in back pay for workers over the past five years, Agriculture, Amusement, Apparel Manufacturing, Auto Repair, Child Care Services, Construction, Food Services, Guard Services, Hair, Nail & Skin Care Services, Health Care, Hotels and Motels, Janitorial Services, Landscaping Services, Retail, and Temporary Help and other U.S. employers should evaluate their current and past potential liability exposures and consider using the new pilot WHD self-audit Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program announced by WHD on March 6 or other options to mitigate their liability for their own or temporary or other contract labor’s existing or past minimum wage and hour law violations.
U.S. employers and leaders with wage and hour management authority risk substantial liability from unresolved violations of the FLSA and other federal and state wage and hour laws.
One of the most frequently violated and litigated federal employment laws, the FLSA generally requires that U.S. employers pay nonexempt employees at least $7.25 per hour for all regular compensable hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. In general, FLSA “hours worked” includes all time an employee must be on duty, or on the employer’s premises or at any other prescribed place of work, from the beginning of the first principal work activity to the end of the last principal activity of the workday. Similar state or local laws often also impose higher minimum wage, compensable hour, break and other requirements than federal law requires.
The FLSA and most applicable state and local wage and hour laws also mandate that employers maintain records of the hours worked by employees by non-exempt employees, documentation of the employer’s proper payment of its non-exempt employees in accordance with the minimum wage and overtime mandates of the FLSA, and certain other records and prohibit retaliation by an employer or other person again an employee or other person for asserting rights under the law or cooperating in a WHD investigation about FLSA compliance.
Beyond these FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements, WHD regulations and court decisions provide guidance on when an employer must treat “on-call” time, travel time, meal and break times, and certain other time periods as compensable hours worked by a non-exempt employee, when “comp time” in lieu of the payment of wages is permitted, various alternative methods for calculating overtime under certain special circumstances, and various other rules applicable to various special circumstances. Other special rules also can apply to businesses employing tipped employees, home workers, child labor, certain farm workers, workers working with special visas, and other special classes or workers. Furthermore, collective bargaining agreements or other contracts or other federal, state or local laws also sometimes impose additional requirements for employers to pay higher “prevailing wages,” apply special rules for counting compensable work hours, and provide specified fringe benefits or other special compensation or protections or other wages, when the employer is a government contractor or subcontractor covered by the Service Contract Act, the Davis Bacon Act or other similar federal or state statutes.
Over the past decade, WHD and private enforcement of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws generally has skyrocketed in part driven by the Obama Administration’s prioritization on raising the minimum wage, extending federal wage and hour protections, and expanding WHD and other enforcement. WHD’s success in recovering more than $1.2 billion in back pay for workers over the past five years and other achievements in expanding its own and private oversight and enforcement and the continuation of these efforts under the Trump Administration means all employers need to view wage and hour law as a major liability risk requiring conscientious management. However, the risk of enforcement is particularly acute for businesses in the following industries, designed for heightened enforcement and other attention as “Low Wage High Violation Industries” based on their particularly high record of noncompliance: Agriculture, Amusement, Apparel Manufacturing, Auto Repair, Child Care Services, Construction, Food Services, Guard Services, Hair, Nail & Skin Care Services, Health Care, Hotels and Motels, Janitorial Services, Landscaping Services, Retail, and Temporary Help.
Beyond assessing their FLSA and other wage and hour compliance and associated exposures from the worker on their own payroll, U.S. employers and their leaders also should take care to carefully evaluate potential exposures from nontraditional services relationships and act to manage those risks.
Misclassification of workers providing services as non-employees increasingly causes U.S. businesses to incur unanticipated FLSA and other wage and hour law liability for back pay, liquidated punitive damages, civil monetary penalties and other liability, in part because of WHD’s stepped up worker education, scrutiny, investigation, and enforcement challenging employers’ treatment of workers as non-employees.
The FLSA and state and local rules generally apply to any workers that the employer who receives its services cannot prove is not its common law employee or an exempt employee within the meaning of the FLSA. The FLSA and most other wage and hour laws generally rules presume that workers rendering services are common law employees of the business in most circumstances. Businesses should evaluate their FLSA exposures from both workers they recognize as common law employees and those performing services in capacities that the business typically does not view as common law or otherwise covered by the FLSA when managing FLSA compliance and evaluating exposures, employers should exercise care not to overlook potential responsibilities and exposures associated with outsourced services provided through relationships characterized by the employer as subcontractors, independent contractors, lease employees, or other common outsourced relationships.
Court decisions and regulations provide guidance for determining when leased, contract, jointly employed, independent contractor or other non-traditionally employed workers will be treated as employees of a business, As in many other enforcement areas, The WHD and many other agencies increasingly view the misclassification of workers as something other than employees, such as independent contractors, leased employees and other common “outsourced” relationship as a serious problem for affected employees, employers and to the entire economy.
According to the Labor Department, misclassified employees are often denied access to critical benefits and protections, such as family and medical leave, overtime, minimum wage and unemployment insurance and other rights. The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. To address these and other concerns, the Labor Department has joined other agencies like the Internal Revenue Service increasingly is challenging employers’ treatment of workers as exempt from FLSA and other legal obligations as independent contractors or otherwise.
The ultimate question is whether a worker “is really in business for him or herself (and thus is an independent contractor) or is economically dependent on the employer (and thus is an employee).
Consistent with these principles, WHD and private litigants in recent years have increasingly scrutinized and successfully challenged employers’ failure to comply with the FLSA’s minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping and other rules with respect to these outsourced workers. See e.g., $1.4M FLSA Back Pay Award Demonstrates Worker Misclassification Risks; Employer Faces $2M FLSA Lawsuit For Alleged Worker Misclassification; $754,578 FLSA Settlement Shows Employer Risks From Worker Misclassification, Underpayment; WHD now both conducts significant worker education outreach and regularly requests and scrutinizes the characterization of and FLSA compliance of outsourced workers in connection with its FLSA investigations and audits. See e.g. Get the Facts on Misclassification Under the FLSA; Am I an Employee?: Employment Relationship Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Compliance Assistance Page – Fair Labor Standards Act; Elaws: Independent Contractors; Know Your Rights Video Series: Misclassification as an Independent Contractor; WHD Press Releases about employee Misclassification as Independent Contractors. These and other developments are significantly increasing the likelihood that businesses will face WHD or private litigants challenges to its FLSA compliance relating to workers rendering services as independent contractors, subcontractors or other outsourced services providers.
Employers often face substantial challenges responding to, much less, containing their FLSA exposures when a WHD or a private litigant successfully challenges the employer’s classification of the worker as a non-employee for a variety of reasons. Beyond the likelihood of violations resulting from the employer’s failure to recognize it might owe minimum wage and overtime duties to the worker, an employer often lacks records and other data needed to fulfill recordkeeping and posting requirements and to accurately demonstrate hours worked and hourly rates to limit resulting back pay exposures because these workers are not treated as part of the employer’s workforce. Obtaining the necessary records to respond to a WHD or other investigation, lawsuit or other action often proves challenging because the independent contractor, leasing company, or other provider or of the services often becomes unavailable, is disincentivized by its own noncompliance or other interests, has failed to maintain necessary documentation or otherwise fails to cooperate in the delivery of these materials. Furthermore, as leased employee, staffing, independent contractor and other outsourced arrangements invoice services at higher rates of compensation payment than the employer might otherwise have paid a traditionally employed worker, the lack of records and elevated compensation rates tend to push up the compensation used to calculate back pay and other awards. Accordingly, employers utilizing these arrangements should use care in structuring and administering these arrangements properly to evaluate their likely FLSA and other treatment and to manage these risks.
Under the FSLA and applicable state wage and hour laws, violations of the FLSA and other federal or state wage and hour laws expose employers to substantial back pay, interest and punitive damages, civil monetary penalties for willful or and in the case of willful or repeated violations and in the case of willful violations, criminal prosecution.
Because of the ability to recover liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees in addition to unpaid back pay, private enforcement of the FLSA is common. The FLSA generally allows employees wrongfully denied wages in violation of the FLSA to bring lawsuits to enforce their rights provided that the WHD has not or does not intervene to enforce those rights on the worker’s behalf. Workers successfully proving an employer violated their FLSA rights typically can recover back pay, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement from the breaching employer. In some cases, Corporate officers such as CEOs, CFOs or COOs and other management leaders with control over the breaching employer’s financial affairs also be held personally liable for the unpaid wages See e.g., Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, +2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4599 (11th Cir. 2013)(ruling personal liability for FLSA violations can attach to any individual with control over an employer’s financial affairs who could potentially cause an employer to violate FLSA).
As an alternative to private litigation, the FLSA empowers the WHD to supervise or if necessary, enforce through litigation the rights of workers against a breaching employer to recover back pay plus liquidated damages in an amount equal to the wrongfully denied wages. WHD also can pursue injunctive relief against noncompliant employers.
When an employer’s violation of the FLSA is repetitious or willful, the FLSA empowers WHD to impose civil money penalties (CMPs) against the noncompliant employer in addition to the recovery of back pay and liquidated damages. Intended to discourage future noncompliance by an employer guilty of violating the FLSA, CMPs for a “repeated” violation are assessable when the employer had previously violated the minimum wage or overtime requirements of the FLSA. CMPs for a “willful” violation may be assessed when it can be shown that the employer knew that its conduct was prohibited by the FLSA or showed reckless disregard for the requirements of the FLSA. CMPs ordinarily are imposed based on violations occurring within the normal two-year investigation period. Where violations are determined to be willful, the investigation will cover a three-year period.
In addition to or instead of lawsuits by the Secretary of Labor for back wages or injunctive relief, willful violation of the FLSA also can trigger criminal prosecutions against an employer by the Department of Justice. Criminal penalties for willful FLSA violations include a fine of up to $10,000, or a term of imprisonment of up to six months, or both, on all convictions after the first conviction. Since enforcement actions by the DOJ can be brought instead of or in addition to lawsuits by WHD for back wages or injunctive relief, an employer that willfully violates the FLSA can be ordered to pay liquidated damages and back-pay, as well as any court imposed criminal fine or penalty.
Always popular, WHD and private enforcement of the FLSA initially spiked upward following the highly publicized George W. Bush Administration’s implementation of updated FLSA “white collar” regulations regarding the classification of workers as exempt. The Obama Administration’s highly publicized, but unsuccessful, campaign to increase the minimum wage and aggressive FLSA educational outreach and enforcement further fueled this trend. While President Trump has opposed proposals to increase the federal minimum wage, he has expressed his commitment to protect workers’ FLSA rights through continued vigorous enforcement of the FLSA minimum wage, overtime and other rules.
As a result of its aggressive enforcement commitments, WHD takes credit for having recovered more than $1.2 billion in back wages on behalf of more than 1.3 million workers over the past five years. See here. The following WHD enforcement statistics reflect that its commitment to FLSA enforcement has continued during President Trump’s tenure in office.
Taking other actions to correct and prevent a recurrence of those violations.
Originally slated as a pilot program set to expire after six months, the PAID program remains an opportunity offered by WHD on its website, which also shares “testimonials” from various employers that report having participated in the PAID program.
While participation in the PAID program purpoerts to offer allows a participating employer to settle its exposure to prosecution for those violations by WHD without incurring some of themore extraordinary penalties that WHD is authorized to assess, many practitioners and employers report having achieved similar and in some cases even more favorable outcomes through negotiations conducted outside the PAID program. Furthermore, many employers may face challenges in using the program as a result of the inability to marshal the required capital to pay 100 percent of the back pay due within the required time period.
Beyond this challenge, employers evaluating whether to seek relief through the new PAID program also may need to weigh a variety of other concerns.
For instance, employers considering participation need to understand that the settlement only addresses potential liability from WHD enforcement. While WHD’s requirement that a participating employer pay affect 100 percent of any wrongfully denied back pay to the impacted employees generally would reduce the actual back pay damages recoverable by an employee in a private enforcement action, WHD says settlements reached with the WHD under the PAID program does not prevent employees wrongfully denied wages in violation of FSLA from bringing private lawsuits. Rather, WHD states that it will be purely the employee’s choice whether to accept the payment of back wages the employer agrees to pay under the PAID program settlement. If the employee chooses to not accept the payment, the employee will not release any private right of action. Additionally, if the employee chooses to accept the payment, the employee will not grant a broad release of all potential claims under the FLSA. Rather, the releases are tailored to only the identified violations and time period for which the employer is paying the back wages. The WHD also cautions that regardless of whether the employee accepts or rejects the back pay specified in the PAID program, the FLSA will prohibit employers from retaliating against the employee for his or her choice. Furthermore, while the payment of previously unpaid amounts could reduce the amount of unpaid wages for purposes of determining liability for state wage and hour law violations, the WHD settlement does not directly impact or release liability for any state wage and hour violations.
While any FLSA covered employer may use the program, interested employers should understand that acceptance into the program is not automatic and is not available for all FLSA violations. Rather, the PAID program only covers potential violations of the FLSA’s overtime and minimum wage requirements that an employer self-identifies and voluntarily discloses and resolves in accordance with its PAID program settlement with WHD. An employer cannot use the PAID program to resolve any issues for which WHD is already investigating the employer, or which the employer is already litigating in court, arbitration, or otherwise. An employer likewise may not initiate the process when an employee’s representative or counsel has already communicated an interest in litigating or settling the issue. Employers using the Paid program also must be prepared to correct the noncompliant practices that resulted in the violations settled under the PAID program. According to the WHD, WHD will not allow employers to use the program to repeatedly resolve the same violations, as this program is designed to identify and correct non-compliant practices. By allowing employers to participate in the PAID program, WHD also does not waive its right to conduct any future investigations of the employer.
Employers contemplating participation in the PAID program generally should conduct a self-audit after updating their understanding of WHD program and compliance assistance materials and other WHD guidance. Because the information, analysis and discussions conducted in this process may be legally sensitive, employers generally will want to engage qualified legal counsel before initiating these processes to advise and assist the employer about the adequacy and risks of its existing practices, recommendations for redressing known compliance issues and other risks as well as opportunities and procedures for qualifying certain of these actions and discussions for coverage under attorney-client privilege, attorney work product or other evidentiary protections.
Whether or not an employer decides based on the audit to pursue compliance resolution through the PAID program, employers generally should work with their legal counsel within the scope of attorney client privilege to organize and retain documentation of their audit, its findings of compliance and, for any potential compliance issues, corrective actions taken to redress those issues retrospectively and prospectively, and other documentation that the employer might need to pursue resolution under the PAID program or otherwise respond to and defend against a WHD or private charges brought by an employee in the future.
The calculation of the amount of back wages the employer believes are owed to each employee.
A certification that the employer will adjust its practices to avoid the same potential violations in the future.
After preparing this information, the employer generally will want to arrange for legal counsel to make the preliminary contact to the WHD to request that the WHD admit the employer to the PAID program. During the preliminary contact, the WHD will require that a list of the specific potential violations, and the identity, specific time frame and back pay amount that employer believes it owes to each affected employee as a prerequisite to considering the request for admission to the program. If the WHD approves the employer’s request, WHD will require that the employer or its legal counsel on its behalf provide the remaining information listed above. After evaluating this information, WHD will provide notification of the next steps, including the collection of any other information necessary for WHD to assess and confirm the back wages due for the identified violations.
Current published guidance states that after WHD assesses the back wages due, it will issue a summary of unpaid wages. WHD will also issue forms describing the settlement terms for each employee, which employees may sign to receive payment. The release of claims provided in the form will match the previously agreed-upon language and, again, must be limited to only the potential violations for which the employer had paid back wages. The PAID program settlement will require the employers to pay the back pay amounts confirmed in the summary of unpaid wages promptly and in full by the end of the next payroll period after receiving the WHD summary of wages confirming the back pay amounts required.
Regardless of whether an employer elects to pursue using the new PAID program, all FLSA covered employers generally should consult with legal counsel within the scope of attorney-client privilege to assess the defensibility of their existing practices for classifying and compensating workers under existing Federal and state wage and hour laws, tighten contracting and other compliance oversight in relation to outsourced services, and about using the PAID program and other options to minimize their potential liability under applicable wages and hour laws. Conducting this analysis within the scope of attorney-client privilege is important because the analysis and discussions are highly sensitive both as potential evidence for wage and hour and other legal purposes. Consequently, businesses and their leaders generally will want to arrange for this work to be protected to the extent by attorney-client privilege, work product and other evidentiary protections against discovery by WHD, employees or others for FLSA or other workforce enforcement actions.
Explore insurance, indemnification and other options for mitigating risks and associated investigation and defense costs .
Pursue self-correction within the new PAID Program or otherwise.
Many employers also will want to consider adopting or strengthening their use of arbitration agreements, strengthening contract compliance, audit, indemnification and other contractual safeguards in staffing and other outsourcing contracts and broadening employment practices and other liability insurance coverage to mitigate and manage these exposures.
For additional information, please contact the author or other qualified legal counsel with health industry wage and hour and other labor and employment experience.
Ms. Stamer is nationally and internationally recognized for her work assisting businesses, governments, and other entities to develop, implement, administer and defend pragmatic strategies for dealing with employment and other workforce and related compensation, employee benefit, performance management and internal controls, insurance, health care and finance concerns to manage risk, operations and other business objectives.
Businesses that reimburse employee moving expenses should review their practices in response to changes to the Internal Revenue Code rules on qualified moving expenses. The requirement to treat moving expenses as taxable is just one of many changes to the treatment of fringe benefits and compensation under the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) as part of the tax reforms enacted last year.
Under previous law, payment or reimbursement of an employee’s qualified moving expenses were not subject to income or employment taxes.
Under last year’s tax reform legislation, however, employers generally must include all moving expenses, in employees’ wages, subject to income and employment taxes.
An employer pays a third party in 2018 for qualified moving services provided to an employee prior to 2018.
An employer reimburses an employee in 2018 for qualified moving expenses incurred prior to 2018.
To qualify for the transition rule, the payments or reimbursements must be for qualified expenses which would have been deductible by the employee if the employee had directly paid them before Jan. 1, 2018. The employee must not have deducted them in 2017.
Employers who have included amounts covered by the exception or the transition rule in individuals’ wages or compensation can take steps to correct taxable wages and employment taxes.
The changes to the tax treatment of moving expense reimbursements is one of many changes passed last year. For more information or help with these or other workforce, compensation and benefits concerns, contact the author.
Employees should heed the warning provided by a federal grand jury’s indictment today charging a Walled Lake, Michigan restaurant owner with 24 counts of failing to account for and pay over employment taxes and one count of willful failure to file an income tax return, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Zuckerman of the Justice Department’s Tax Division.
According to the indictment, Johni Semma owned Bayside Sports Bar & Grill (“Bayside”), a restaurant, and The Coliseum, an adult entertainment business. As the owner of Bayside, Semma was allegedly responsible for collecting and paying over Bayside’s employment taxes. The indictment charges that during 2008 to 2015, Bayside accrued employment tax liabilities of more than $1 million and that Semma withheld those taxes from the pay of the restaurant’s employees. Semma then allegedly failed to fully pay over the amounts he withheld to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The indictment further alleges that in 2012, Semma sold The Coliseum for more than $6 million with approximately $3.5 million of the purchase price paid during 2012. Despite receiving considerable income from the sale of The Coliseum and other sources, Semma allegedly did not file a 2012 income tax return.
If convicted, Semma faces a statutory maximum of five years in prison for each count of failure to pay over the employment taxes. He faces a statutory maximum of one year in prison for the one count of willful failure to file his income tax return. In addition, he faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. An indictment is an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Employers should recognize the indictment as a reminder to ensure they timely collect and deposit all employment taxes withheld in accordance with applicable law.

References: § 206
 § 30
 § 207
 § 207
 § 778
 § 778
 v. 
 § 778
 v. 
 v.