The FLSA requires that workers who are covered by the act and not specifically exempt from its provisions be paid at least the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour) and 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The act also regulates the employment of youth under the age of 18 and establishes recordkeeping requirements for employers, among other provisions. There are a number of exceptions to the requirements of the FLSA; for example, independent contractors are not covered by the FLSA, and certain categories of workers, such as those in bona fide executive, administrative, or professional positions, are exempt from the minimum wage requirements, overtime requirements, or both. WHD has issued regulations implementing the FLSA that further define these exemptions and other requirements of the FLSA. The mission pursued by DOL through its WHD is to promote and achieve compliance with labor standards to protect and enhance the welfare of the nation’s workforce. The FLSA authorizes DOL to enforce its provisions by, for example, conducting investigations, assessing penalties, supervising payment of back wages, and bringing suit in court on behalf of employees. DOL’s WHD also conducts a range of compliance assistance activities to support employers in their efforts to understand and meet the requirements of the law. WHD’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities are conducted by staff in its 52 district offices, which are located throughout the country and managed by staff in its five regional offices and Washington, D.C. headquarters. In response to complaints of alleged FLSA violations it receives from workers or their representatives, WHD conducts several types of enforcement activities. These range from comprehensive investigations covering all laws under the agency’s jurisdiction to conciliations, a quick remediation process generally limited to a single alleged FLSA violation such as a missed paycheck for a single worker. Before WHD initiates an investigation of a complaint, it screens the complaint to determine, among other factors, whether the allegations, if true, would violate the law, and to ensure the statute of limitations has not expired. If WHD identifies a violation through an enforcement activity, but the employer refuses to pay the back wages or penalties assessed, DOL’s Office of the Solicitor may sue the employer on behalf of the affected workers. In fiscal year 2012, WHD conducted investigations or conciliations in response to about 20,000 FLSA complaints and DOL’s Office of the Solicitor filed about 200 federal lawsuits to enforce the requirements of the FLSA on behalf of workers. In addition to responding to complaints, WHD enforces the requirements of the FLSA by initiating investigations of employers by targeting industries it believes have a high probability of violations but a low likelihood that workers will file a complaint. In fiscal year 2012, WHD concluded about 7,000 targeted FLSA investigations. WHD encourages compliance with the FLSA by providing training for employers and workers and creating online tools and fact sheets that explain the requirements of the law and related regulations, among other efforts. The agency refers to these efforts collectively as compliance assistance. One form of FLSA compliance assistance WHD provides is written interpretive guidance that attempts to clarify the agency’s interpretation of a statutory or regulatory provision. WHD disseminates this guidance to those who request it—such as employers and workers— and posts it on the WHD website for public use. WHD’s interpretive guidance includes opinion letters which apply to a specific situation. However, in 2010, WHD stopped issuing opinion letters and indicated that it would instead provide administrator interpretations, which are more broadly applicable. As a result of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which established a “safe harbor” from liability under the FLSA for employers that rely in good faith on a written interpretation from WHD’s administrator, certain WHD written guidance could potentially provide a “safe harbor” in FLSA litigation. The FLSA also grants workers the right to file a private lawsuit to recover wages they claim they are owed because of their employer’s violation of the act’s minimum wage or overtime pay requirements. WHD cannot investigate all of the thousands of complaints it receives each year because of its limited capacity. Therefore, the agency informs workers whose complaints of FLSA violations are not investigated or otherwise resolved by WHD of their right to file a lawsuit. Workers filing an FLSA lawsuit may file in one of the 94 federal district courts, which are divided into 12 regional circuits across the country. FLSA lawsuits may be brought individually or as part of a collective action. A collective action is a single lawsuit filed by one or more representative workers on behalf of multiple workers who claim that an employer violated the FLSA in similar ways. The court will generally certify whether an action meets the requirements to proceed as a collective; in some cases, the court may decertify a collective after it is formed if the court subsequently determines that the collective does not meet those requirements. In such cases, the court may permit the members of the decertified collective to individually file private FLSA lawsuits. Over the last two decades, the number of FLSA lawsuits filed nationwide in federal district courts has increased substantially, with most of this increase occurring in the last decade. Since 1991, the number of FLSA lawsuits filed has increased by 514 percent, with a total of 8,148 FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012. Since 2001, when 1,947 FLSA lawsuits were filed, the number of FLSA lawsuits has increased sharply (see fig. 1). Not only has the number of FLSA lawsuits increased, but they also constitute a larger proportion of all federal civil lawsuits than they did in past years. In 1991, FLSA lawsuits made up less than 1 percent (.6 percent) of all civil lawsuits, but by 2012, FLSA lawsuits accounted for almost 3 percent of all civil lawsuits, an increase of 383 percent. These increases, however, were not evenly distributed across all states. In fact, while federal district courts in most states saw increases in both the number of FLSA lawsuits filed and the percentage of all civil lawsuits filed that were FLSA lawsuits, increases in a small number of states were substantial and contributed significantly to the overall trends. In each of three states—Florida, New York, and Alabama—more than 1,000 more FLSA lawsuits were filed in fiscal year 2012 than in fiscal year 1991 (see fig. 2). Since 2001, more than half of all FLSA lawsuits were accounted for by filings in those three states. About 43 percent of FLSA lawsuits filed nationwide during this period were filed in either Florida (33 percent) or New York (10 percent). At the same time, the percentage of all federal civil cases that were FLSA cases in those three states also increased significantly. In both Florida and New York, growth in the number of FLSA lawsuits filed was generally steady, while changes in Alabama involved sharp increases in fiscal years 2007 and 2012 with far fewer lawsuits filed in other years. Each spike in Alabama coincided with the decertification of at least one large collective action, which likely resulted in multiple individual lawsuits. From 1991 to 2012, while most states experienced increases in the number of FLSA lawsuits filed, the proportion of civil lawsuits that were FLSA lawsuits, or both, these trends were not universal. In 14 states, the number of FLSA lawsuits filed in 2012 was less than or the same as the number of FLSA lawsuits filed in 1991, and in 10 states the proportion of civil lawsuits FLSA cases made up was smaller in 2012 than in 1991. While many factors have likely contributed to the overall increase in FLSA lawsuits and stakeholders we interviewed cited multiple factors, they most frequently cited increased awareness about FLSA cases and activity on the part of plaintiffs’ attorneys as a significant contributing factor. Many stakeholders, including two plaintiffs’ attorneys, told us that financial incentives, combined with the fairly straightforward nature of many FLSA cases, made attorneys receptive to taking these cases. In some states, specifically Florida, where nearly 30 percent of all FLSA lawsuits were filed from 1991 to 2012, several stakeholders, including federal judges, WHD officials, and a defense attorney, told us that plaintiffs’ attorneys advertise for wage and hour cases via billboards, radio, foreign language press, and other methods. Two stakeholders we spoke with also said that some plaintiffs’ attorneys, when consulted by potential clients about other employment issues, such as wrongful termination, will inquire about potential wage and hour claims; a plaintiffs’ attorney we interviewed also said that it is generally easier to evaluate the potential merits of wage and hour cases than of wrongful termination and employment discrimination cases. While a few stakeholders said they did not view increased interest among plaintiffs’ attorneys to be a significant factor in the increase in FLSA lawsuits, most did, including some plaintiffs’ attorneys. Two stakeholders, including an academic and a representative of an organization that works on behalf of low wage workers, told us that this increased interest was beneficial because it served to counterbalance DOL’s limited FLSA enforcement capacity. In addition, several stakeholders told us that evolving case law may have contributed to the increased awareness and activity on the part of plaintiffs’ attorneys. In particular, they mentioned the 1989 Supreme Court decision Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, which held that federal courts have discretion to facilitate notice to potential plaintiffs of ongoing collective actions. Historically, according to several stakeholders, the requirement that plaintiffs must “opt in” to a collective action had created some challenges to forming collectives because the plaintiffs’ attorneys had to identify potential plaintiffs and contact them to get them to join the collective. Stakeholders we interviewed said the Hoffmann-La Roche decision, which made it easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys to identify potential plaintiffs, reduced the work necessary to form collectives. In addition, according to several stakeholders we interviewed, case law in other areas of employment litigation, such as employment discrimination, has evolved, making FLSA cases relatively more attractive for plaintiffs’ attorneys who specialize in employment litigation and large multi-plaintiff cases. For example, one attorney cited two Supreme Court decisions in the late 1990s that made it more difficult for plaintiffs in employment- based sex discrimination lawsuits to prevail, and led plaintiffs’ attorneys to consider other types of employment litigation such as FLSA cases. Stakeholders also cited other factors that may have contributed to the increase in FLSA litigation over the last two decades; however, these factors were endorsed less consistently than the role played by plaintiffs’ attorneys. First, a number of stakeholders said that economic conditions, such as the recent recession, may have played a role in the increase in FLSA litigation. Workers who have been laid off face less risk when filing FLSA lawsuits against former employers than workers who are still employed and may fear retaliation as a result of filing lawsuits. In addition, some stakeholders said that, during difficult economic times, employers may be more likely to violate FLSA requirements in an effort to reduce costs, possibly resulting in more FLSA litigation. Moreover, one judge we interviewed noted that the recent recession has also been difficult for attorneys and may be a factor in the types of lawsuits and clients they choose to accept. In addition, ambiguity in applying the FLSA statute or regulations—particularly the exemption for executive, administrative, and professional workers—was cited as a factor by a number of stakeholders. In 2004, DOL issued a final rule updating and revising its regulations in an attempt to clarify these exemptions and provided guidance about the changes, but a few stakeholders told us there is still significant confusion among employers about which workers should be classified as exempt under these categories. Finally, the potentially large number of wage and hour violations was given as a possible reason for the increase in FLSA litigation. Federal judges in New York and Florida attributed some of the concentration of such litigation in their districts to the large number of restaurants and other service industry jobs in which wage and hour violations are more common than in some other industries. An academic who focuses on labor and employment relations told us that centralization in the management structure of businesses in retail, restaurant, and similar industries has contributed to FLSA lawsuits in these industries because frontline managers who were once exempt have become nonexempt as their nonmanagerial duties have increased as a portion of their overall duties. Service jobs, including those in the leisure and hospitality industry, increased from 2000 to 2010, while most other industries lost jobs during that period. Many stakeholders also told us that the prevalence of FLSA litigation by state is influenced by the variety of state wage and hour laws. For example, while the federal statute of limitations for filing an FLSA claim is 2 years (3 years if the violation is “willful”), New York state law provides a 6-year statute of limitations for filing state wage and hour lawsuits. A longer statute of limitations may increase potential financial damages in cases because more pay periods are involved and because more workers may be involved. Adding a New York state wage and hour claim to an FLSA lawsuit in federal court may expand the potential damages, which, according to several stakeholders, may influence decisions about where and whether to file a lawsuit. In addition, according to multiple stakeholders we interviewed, because Florida lacks a state overtime law, those who wish to file a lawsuit seeking overtime compensation generally must do so under the FLSA. Our review of a representative sample of FLSA lawsuits filed in federal district court in fiscal year 2012 showed that approximately half were filed against private sector employers in four industries. Almost all FLSA lawsuits (97 percent) were filed against private sector employers. An estimated 57 percent of the FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012 were filed against employers in four broad industry areas: accommodations and food services; manufacturing; construction; and “other services” which, in our sample, included services such as laundry services, domestic work, and nail salons. Almost one-quarter of all lawsuits filed (an estimated 23 percent) were filed by workers in the accommodations and food service industry, which includes hotels, restaurants, and bars. This concentration of lawsuits is consistent with what several stakeholders, including DOL officials, told us about the large number of FLSA violations in the restaurant industry. At the same time, almost 20 percent of FLSA lawsuits were filed by workers in the manufacturing industry. In our sample, most of these lawsuits were filed by workers in the automobile manufacturing industry in Alabama, and most were individual lawsuits filed by workers who were originally part of one of two collective actions that had been decertified. It is important to note that, because of the presence of collective actions, the number of lawsuits filed against an industry’s employers may understate the number of plaintiffs involved in these suits. FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012 included a variety of alleged FLSA violations in addition to at least one of the three types of claims— overtime, minimum wage, and retaliation—that each private FLSA lawsuit must at minimum contain. Allegations of overtime violations were the most common type among those explicitly stated in the documents we reviewed (see fig. 3). An estimated 95 percent of the FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012 alleged violations of the FLSA’s overtime provision, which requires certain types of workers to be paid at one and a half times their regular rate for any hours worked over 40 during a workweek. Thirty-two percent of the FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012 contained allegations that the worker or workers were not paid the federal minimum wage, another main provision of the FLSA, while a smaller percentage of lawsuits included allegations that the employer unlawfully retaliated against workers (14 percent). In addition, the majority of lawsuits contained other FLSA allegations, most often that the employer failed to keep proper records of hours worked by the employees (45 percent); failed to post or provide information about the FLSA, as required (7 percent); or violated requirements pertaining to tipped workers such as restaurant wait staff (6 percent). We also identified more specific allegations about how workers claimed their employers violated the FLSA. Nearly 30 percent of the FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012 contained allegations that workers were required to work “off-the-clock” so that they would not need to be paid for that time, and 16 percent alleged that workers were not paid appropriately because they were employees who were misclassified as being exempt from FLSA protections. In a similar proportion of cases (13 percent), alleged overtime violations were claimed to be the result of the miscalculation of the wage rate a worker was entitled to as overtime pay. Such miscalculations could be the result, for example, of an employer not factoring in bonuses paid to workers when determining their regular rate of pay, which is used for the calculation of the overtime pay rate. Other lawsuits included allegations that a worker was misclassified as an independent contractor rather than an employee (4 percent). Independent contractors are generally not covered by the FLSA, including its minimum wage and overtime provisions. In our review of FLSA lawsuits filed in fiscal year 2012, we found that a majority of them were filed as individual actions, but collective actions also composed a substantial proportion of these lawsuits. Collective actions can serve to reduce the burden on courts and protect plaintiffs by reducing costs for individuals and incentivizing attorneys to represent workers in pursuit of claims under the law. They may also protect employers from facing the burden of many individual lawsuits; however, they can also be costly to employers because they may result in large amounts of damages. We found that an estimated 58 percent of the FLSA lawsuits filed in federal district court in fiscal year 2012 were filed individually, and 40 percent were filed as collective actions. An estimated 16 percent of the FLSA lawsuits filed (about a quarter of all individually- filed lawsuits), however, were originally part of a collective action that was decertified (see fig. 4). For example, 14 of the 15 lawsuits in our sample filed in Alabama were filed by individuals who had been members of one of two collectives that were decertified in fiscal year 2012. Consistent with its stated mission of promoting and achieving compliance with labor standards, WHD has an annual process for planning how it targets its FLSA enforcement resources. Each year, WHD’s national office plans the share of its enforcement resources that will be used for targeted investigations versus responding to complaints it receives from workers or their representatives about potential FLSA violations. To plan the deployment of its resources for targeted investigations, WHD identifies broad initiatives that focus on industries it determines have a high likelihood of FLSA violations and where workers may be particularly vulnerable. For example, WHD has targeted industries where workers may be less likely to complain about violations or where the employment relationship is splintered because of models such as franchising or subcontracting. WHD’s regional and district offices then refine the list of priority industries to develop plans that focus on the most pressing issues in their areas. Each year, with input and ultimate approval from the national office, WHD’s regional and district offices use these plans to target their enforcement resources. In developing their enforcement plans, WHD considers various inputs. For example, WHD officials consider the nature and prevalence of FLSA violations by using historical enforcement data to study trends in FLSA complaints and investigation outcomes in particular areas. University- based researchers under contract with DOL have also used the agency’s historical enforcement data to help it plan for and strategize its FLSA enforcement efforts. In addition, WHD considers data from external sources, such as reports from industry groups, advocacy organizations, and academia. Although WHD’s national office is aware of significant FLSA lawsuits through its monitoring of FLSA issues in court decisions, WHD’s national, regional, and district offices do not analyze data on the number of FLSA lawsuits filed or use the results of such analyses to inform their enforcement plans. WHD officials noted that data on the number of FLSA lawsuits filed may not provide an accurate or sensitive gauge of FLSA violations because the number of workers involved and the outcomes of these lawsuits are not readily available. In developing their annual enforcement plans, WHD regional and district offices identify approaches to achieving compliance given the industry structure and the nature of the FLSA violations that they seek to address. According to WHD internal guidance, strategic enforcement plans should not only include targeted investigations of the firms that employ workers potentially experiencing FLSA violations, but they should also contain strategies to engage related stakeholders in preventing such violations. For example, if a WHD office plans to investigate restaurants to identify potential violations of the FLSA, it should also develop strategies to engage restaurant trade associations about FLSA-related issues so that these stakeholders can help bring about compliance in the industry. Our prior reports and DOL’s planning and performance documents have emphasized the need for WHD to help employers comply with the FLSA. In documenting best practices about planning and performance management, we have suggested that agencies “involve regulated entities in the prevention aspect of performance.” In the case of WHD, this best practice means helping employers voluntarily comply with the FLSA, among other laws. Similarly, DOL’s planning and performance documents have emphasized the importance of WHD promoting “sustained and corporate-wide compliance among employers” as a strategic priority. According to federal standards for internal control, program managers need operational data to determine whether they are meeting their agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans as well as their goals for effective and efficient use of resources. In addition, according to our guidance on the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), for planning and performance measures to be effective, federal managers need to use performance information to identify problems and look for solutions and approaches that improve results. WHD expects staff in its regional and district offices to play a key role in delivering some forms of compliance assistance. For example, staff in the district offices respond directly to employers’ questions about laws such as the FLSA by providing informal guidance, most of which is offered over the phone but is sometimes provided in writing when the guidance is particularly technical. In addition, in each of WHD’s five regions, there are three or more staff who specialize in community outreach and planning. These specialists are involved in planning meetings and developing outreach efforts and other forms of compliance assistance as part of the annual, district-specific enforcement plans. Finally, WHD investigators in the field are responsible for providing information and education to employers during their enforcement actions. At the national level, WHD publishes FLSA-related guidance including notably its interpretive guidance, though this guidance is not informed by systematic analysis of data on requests for assistance. To develop and assess its interpretive guidance about the FLSA, WHD’s national office considers input from its regional offices, but it does not have a data-based approach that is informed by objective input, such as data on areas which employers and workers have indicated the need for additional guidance. Officials from WHD’s Office of Policy, which is responsible for publishing interpretive guidance about the FLSA, told us they meet with WHD regional and national office leadership weekly to discuss ongoing initiatives and emerging issues. While WHD collects some data on the inquiries it receives from the public via its call center, the Office of Policy does not analyze these data to help guide its development of interpretive guidance. According to WHD officials, the call center frequently refers callers with technical questions to a WHD district office, but WHD does not compile data on FLSA-related questions received by its district offices. In addition, WHD does not use advisory panels to gather input about areas of confusion that might be addressed with the help of additional or clarified interpretive guidance on the FLSA. WHD officials cited the administrative burdens associated with the Federal Advisory Committee Act as a deterrent to using such panels to inform its guidance. At the same time, despite the issuance of several FLSA-related fact sheets, WHD’s publication of FLSA-related interpretive guidance has declined in recent years. From 2001 to 2009, WHD published on its website, on average, about 37 FLSA interpretive guidance documents annually. However, in the last 3 years (2010 to 2012), WHD published seven FLSA interpretive guidance documents. WHD officials cited various reasons for this decline, including the resource-intensive nature of developing the guidance; WHD’s finite resources; and other priorities, such as promoting compliance with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. In addition, WHD cited its issuance of several FLSA-related fact sheets, which WHD posts separately from interpretive guidance on its website. For example, in September 2013, WHD published several fact sheets about domestic service employment under the FLSA, and, in July 2013, it revised a fact sheet about ownership of tips under the FLSA. According to WHD officials, there is no backlog of requests for FLSA interpretive guidance; however, WHD does not maintain a system for tracking requests for such guidance. Because WHD does not have a systematic approach for identifying areas of confusion about the FLSA or assessing the guidance it has published, WHD may not be providing the guidance that employers and workers need. Of the nine wage and hour attorneys we interviewed, seven indicated that more interpretive guidance on the FLSA would be helpful to them. The attorneys cited determining whether workers qualify for exemptions and calculating workers’ regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation as examples of FLSA topics on which more guidance would be useful. Some policymakers have raised questions about the effect that an increasing number of FLSA lawsuits might have on employers’ finances and their ability to hire workers or offer flexible work schedules and other benefits, but it is difficult to isolate the effect of these lawsuits from the effects of other influences such as changes in the economy. On the other hand, the ability of workers to bring such suits is an integral part of FLSA enforcement because WHD does not have the capacity to ensure that all employers are in compliance with the FLSA. While there has been a significant increase in FLSA lawsuits over the last decade, the reason for this increase is difficult to determine: it could suggest that FLSA violations have become more prevalent, that FLSA violations have been reported and pursued more frequently than before, or a combination of the two. Improved guidance from WHD might not affect the number of FLSA lawsuits filed, but it could increase the efficiency and effectiveness of WHD’s efforts to help employers voluntarily comply with the law. Without a precise understanding of the areas of the law and related regulations that are not clear to employers and workers, WHD may not be able to improve the guidance and outreach it provides in the most appropriate or efficient manner. A clearer picture of the needs of employers and workers would allow WHD to more efficiently design and target its compliance assistance efforts, which may, in turn, result in fewer FLSA violations. Moreover, using data about the needs of employers and workers in understanding the requirements of the FLSA would provide WHD greater confidence that the guidance and outreach it provides to employers and workers are having the maximum possible effect. Such data could, for example, serve as a benchmark WHD could use to assess the impact of its efforts. To help inform its compliance assistance efforts, the Secretary of Labor should direct the WHD Administrator to develop a systematic approach for identifying areas of confusion about the requirements of the FLSA that contribute to possible violations and improving the guidance it provides to employers and workers in those areas. This approach could include compiling and analyzing data on requests for guidance on issues related to the FLSA, and gathering and using input from FLSA stakeholders or other users of existing guidance through an advisory panel or other means. We provided a draft of this report to DOL for review and comment. DOL's WHD provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix II. WHD agreed with our recommendation that the agency develop a systematic approach for identifying and considering areas of confusion that contribute to possible FLSA violations to help inform the development and assessment of its guidance. WHD stated that it is in the process of developing systems to further analyze trends in communications received from stakeholders such as workers and employers and will include findings from this analysis as part of its process for developing new or revised guidance. WHD also emphasized that it is difficult to determine with sufficient certainty that any particular action contributed to the described increase in FLSA lawsuits. In addition, WHD provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We also provided a draft of this report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Federal Judicial Center. These agencies had no comments—technical or otherwise—on the report. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the Director of the Federal Judicial Center. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or moranr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. To describe what is known about trends in the number of lawsuits filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (FLSA), we analyzed federal district court data provided by the Federal Judicial Center. The data included case-specific information for all FLSA lawsuits filed in federal district court during fiscal years 1991 through 2012. We analyzed these data by year, circuit, state, and district. The Federal Judicial Center also provided data on the number of civil lawsuits filed during this time period, which we used to analyze the percentage of civil cases that were FLSA cases. We did not review FLSA lawsuits filed in state courts because data on these cases were not available in a consistent way. To provide context about identified trends such as the increase in FLSA lawsuits, we interviewed a range of FLSA stakeholders, including Department of Labor (DOL) officials, attorneys who specialize in wage and hour cases, federal district court and magistrate judges, officials from organizations representing workers and employers, and academics. To ensure balance, we interviewed both attorneys who represent plaintiffs and those who represent defendants. We identified some of these attorneys through organizations that represent workers, such as labor unions and advocacy organizations such as the National Employment Law Project, and industry organizations such as the National Small Business Association. In selecting judges to interview, we chose from districts with a significant increase in FLSA litigation in recent years as well as districts that had not seen such increases to ensure a variety of perspectives. To provide information on selected characteristics of FLSA lawsuits filed, we reviewed a nationally representative random sample of complaints from FLSA lawsuits filed in federal district court during fiscal year 2012. The sample of 97 complaints from FLSA lawsuits was drawn from the case-specific FLSA lawsuit data provided by the Federal Judicial Center. The filing date was determined by the “filing date” field, which records the date a case was docketed in federal court. Cases that were initially filed in federal court, cases removed from state court to federal court, cases transferred from another federal court, and cases for which a new federal docket was otherwise created during fiscal year 2012 (e.g., an individual docket created in fiscal year 2012 after a previously filed collective action was decertified) could be in our sample. We did not review cases from the federal courts of appeals because data linking appeals to their corresponding cases filed in district court were not readily available. All estimates from our sample have a 95 percent confidence interval of within plus or minus 10 percentage points. Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g., plus or minus 10 percentage points). This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. After the sample was drawn, we used the docket number associated with each lawsuit in the sample to retrieve the complaint from the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database and review and record information about the lawsuit. In cases where multiple complaints were associated with a docket, such as amended complaints, we used information from the first available complaint in the docket. We selected this approach to ensure that we recorded information for each individual case at approximately the same stage of litigation. We relied solely on information that could be ascertained from the complaint; we did not do additional research to confirm the accuracy of the information. With respect to our analysis of the specific types of violations alleged in our sample of complaints, our estimates include only those cases in which an allegation was explicitly made in the complaint. It is possible that a larger percent of FSLA litigation involved specific issues that were not alleged explicitly in the complaint and instead were described more generically as overtime or minimum wage violations. In addition, we did not review subsequent documents filed in the case beyond the initial complaint. Therefore, our review does not provide any information about how these lawsuits were ultimately resolved. Information on the number of plaintiffs taking part in a collective action was neither consistently available in the complaints nor was it precise when it was available. Our analysis with regard to the industries in which FLSA lawsuits are filed is based on the number of FLSA lawsuits filed, not the number of plaintiffs included in those lawsuits. A single collective action represents multiple plaintiffs. Therefore, the number of FLSA lawsuits filed against employers in a specific industry may not accurately reflect the number of workers or relative frequency of workers claiming FLSA violations by industry. The complaint from each lawsuit was reviewed by a GAO analyst and a GAO attorney to identify the FLSA violation(s) it alleged and other information, such as whether the lawsuit was a collective action, whether there were associated allegations of state wage and hour law violations, and the industry of the worker or workers who filed the lawsuit. In cases in which the two reviewers recorded information about the lawsuit differently, a discussion between them was held to resolve the difference. We assessed the reliability of the data received from the Federal Judicial Center by interviewing officials at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Federal Judicial Center and by reviewing documentation related to the collection and processing of the data. In addition, we conducted electronic testing to identify any missing data, outliers, and obvious errors. We determined that certain data fields were not sufficiently reliable, and therefore did not use them. For example, we could not analyze data about judgments such as the amount of monetary awards in FLSA lawsuits because, for a large percentage of the cases, the information on the judgment was missing. We determined that the data included in our report were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To describe how DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) plans its FLSA enforcement and compliance assistance efforts, we reviewed the agency’s planning and performance documents, as well as its published guidance on the FLSA. In addition, we interviewed DOL officials in WHD’s Office for Planning, Performance, Evaluation, and Communications; Office of Policy; two regional WHD offices; and DOL’s Office of the Solicitor about the agency’s enforcement and compliance assistance activities. In addition, we asked the other stakeholders we interviewed about their views of WHD’s enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. To provide context throughout the report, we also reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations. Finally, we compared WHD’s planning process to internal control standards (see GAO, Standards for Internal Control in The Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3, Washington, D.C.: November 1999) and best practices that we have previously identified (see GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927, Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005; and Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies’ Performance Management Practices, GAO/GGD-00-10, Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 1999). We did not assess WHD’s implementation of its enforcement and compliance assistance plans. We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to December 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman (Assistant Director), David Barish, James Bennett, Ed Bodine, David Chrisinger, Sarah Cornetto, Justin Fisher, Joel Green, Ying Long, and Walter Vance made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to the report were Jessica Botsford, Susanna Clark, Melinda Cordero, Ashley McCall, Sheila McCoy, Drew Nelson, Catherine Roark, Sabrina Streagle, Anjali Tekchandani, and Kimberly Walton.

Summary: The FLSA sets federal minimum wage and overtime pay requirements applicable to millions of U.S. workers and allows workers to sue employers for violating these requirements. Questions have been raised about the effect of FLSA lawsuits on employers and workers and about WHD's enforcement and compliance assistance efforts as the number of lawsuits has increased. This report (1) describes what is known about the number of FLSA lawsuits filed, and (2) examines how WHD plans its FLSA enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed federal district court data from fiscal years 1991 to 2012 and reviewed selected documents from a representative sample of lawsuits filed in federal district court in fiscal year 2012. GAO also reviewed DOL's planning and performance documents and interviewed DOL officials, as well as stakeholders, including federal judges, plaintiff and defense attorneys who specialize in FLSA cases, officials from organizations representing workers and employers, and academics about FLSA litigation trends and WHD's enforcement and compliance assistance efforts. Substantial increases occurred over the last decade in the number of civil lawsuits filed in federal district court alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (FLSA). Federal courts in most states experienced increases in the number of FLSA lawsuits filed and the percentage of total civil lawsuits filed that were FLSA cases, but large increases were concentrated in a few states, including Florida and New York. The number of workers involved in FLSA lawsuits is unknown because the courts do not collect data on the number of workers represented. Many factors may contribute to this general trend; however, the factor cited most often by stakeholders, including attorneys and judges, was attorneys' increased willingness to take on such cases. In fiscal year 2012, an estimated 97 percent of FLSA lawsuits were filed against private sector employers, often from the accommodations and food services industry, and 95 percent of the lawsuits filed included allegations of overtime violations. The Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has an annual process for planning how it will target its enforcement and compliance assistance resources to help prevent and identify potential FLSA violations, but it does not compile and analyze relevant data to help determine what guidance is needed, as recommended by best practices previously identified by GAO. In planning its enforcement efforts, WHD targets industries it determines have a high likelihood of FLSA violations. Although WHD does not analyze data on FLSA lawsuits when planning its enforcement efforts, it does use information on its receipt and investigation of complaints about possible FLSA violations. In developing its guidance on FLSA, WHD considers input from its regional offices, but it does not have a systematic approach that includes analyzing relevant data, nor does it have a routine, data-based process for assessing the adequacy of its guidance. For example, WHD does not analyze trends in the types of FLSA-related questions it receives. Since 2009, WHD has reduced the number of FLSA-related guidance documents it has published. According to plaintiff and defense attorneys GAO interviewed, more FLSA guidance from WHD would be helpful, such as guidance on how to determine whether certain types of workers are exempt from overtime pay and other requirements. GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor direct the WHD Administrator to develop a systematic approach for identifying and considering areas of confusion that contribute to possible FLSA violations to help inform the development and assessment of its guidance. WHD agreed with the recommendation, and described its plans to address it.