Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog

How Procedural Requirements May Help – or Doom – Your Unpaid Overtime Case in Georgia

October 31, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Claiming “time of the essence” is a common marketing technique. Sellers use deadlines to create a sense of urgency and motivate buyers to act. In sales, a deadline may not be real; it may be merely an artificial tool to pique the customer’s emotions. In law, time really is of the essence in many settings, including matters involving Fair Labor Standards Act violations. A lawsuit filed after the statutory deadline is vulnerable to a motion to dismiss that will, barring special circumstances, likely end the case with no further litigation, no trial, and no award of damages. Whether you are a worker seeking to ensure a timely filing or an employer seeking to terminate a case that was filed too late, obtaining representation from an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer can be an essential step en route to success.

Absent special circumstances, workers pursuing FLSA claims generally must file within either two or three years. If the worker has presented a willful violation of the law, then the law allows three years to bring that case. If the violation is not an allegedly willful one, the worker has only two years in which to sue. If you are the party seeking relief, filing after the limitations period has elapsed is potentially catastrophic to your case. Conversely, a filing that was outside the limitations period can be a huge boon if you are an employer facing an FLSA claim. In each scenario, a motion to dismiss can terminate the case right away.

A federal unpaid overtime case from Miami is a good illustration. Although not taking place in Georgia, the Miami parties were subject to the same set of requirements under the federal rules as parties to a federal lawsuit in Georgia would face, including satisfying the statute of limitations.

What to Do (and Avoid Doing) to Minimize Your Risk of Liability Exposure for Illegal Retaliation

October 25, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Decisions made on impulse or driven by emotions often make bad situations worse. As an employer, dealing with your alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violation the wrong way can significantly expand the legal liability you may face. A minimum wage or unpaid overtime violation is one thing; a minimum wage or unpaid overtime violation plus a violation of the law against retaliation is unequivocally worse. Knowing what to do (and, often, what not to do) when faced with a FLSA claim is crucial. An experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer can help you mitigate your existing liability exposure, and avoid unnecessary additional forms of exposure, as well.

Some missteps are born of a fierce urge to tell “your side of the story.” While sometimes understandable, this can lead to serious trouble.

Take, for example, a recent FLSA retaliation action from New England. The case arose after the president of a Vermont excavation company fired one of his truck drivers following a dispute about overtime pay. The driver complained to the Wage and Hour Division. That agency’s investigation ended with a settlement calling for the employer to compensate the driver for back pay and unlawful discharge.

What Will (and Won’t) Demonstrate Pretext in a Title VII Employment Discrimination Case

October 17, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In employment discrimination cases, most employers will present some sort of facially valid basis for their actions. The crux of many cases, as a result, can come down to the worker’s ability to show that the employer’s stated reason was just a pretext for discrimination. Employees who fail to do this often find themselves on the losing end of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Whether you are the worker or the employer, it is vitally important to understand what is (and is not) a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, and what is (and is not) a valid method for establishing pretext. For answers to these questions and more, be sure to get reliable answers by consulting an experienced Atlanta race discrimination lawyer.

A recent race discrimination case taking place to our south shows how employees can go astray when trying to demonstrate pretext.

The employee, L.B. was an assistant chef with a steak-and-seafood restaurant located just west of Augusta. A new general manager (hired shortly after L.B.) allegedly treated the chef, an African American woman, less favorably than white coworkers. This included refusing to promote the chef to “lead chef” or providing training opportunities while training white workers and hiring new white workers to staff the lead chef position, according to the woman’s lawsuit.

Breastfeeding Awareness Month Has Ended, But It’s Still the Right Time to Focus on the Requirements of the PUMP Act and the FLSA

October 8, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

National Breastfeeding Awareness Month may have ended a few weeks ago (August 31) but any time is a good time for employers and employees who are new (or expecting) mothers to familiarize or re-familiarize themselves with the rights and responsibilities that federal and state laws lay out for workers who need to nurse or express milk (a/k/a pump) during the work day. If you have questions about this aspect of the law, a knowledgeable Atlanta wage and hour lawyer is an essential resource for obtaining reliable answers and ensuring compliance.

Some of the federal requirements in this sphere are well-known, such as the obligation to give nursing/pumping moms breaks to breastfeed/express milk and provide those moms with an appropriate space for this activity. (In other words, not a toilet stall in the office’s communal bathroom or a supply room with no lock on the door that coworkers enter frequently.)

Multiple recent federal class action lawsuits against fast-food employers have focused on the right to an appropriate pumping location.

What the Law Says About Employees Returning to Work After Their 12 Weeks of FMLA Leave Has Expired

September 30, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A worker experiencing health difficulties presents challenges for the employee… and her employer. Employers should proceed carefully, ensuring that any potentially adverse actions they take do not run afoul of federal law. A misstep in this regard could harm not just the worker but also the employer’s business if it exposes the employer to liability for violations of federal anti-discrimination law or the Family and Medical Leave Act. With that in mind, if you are an employer or an employee facing this set of circumstances, it is wise to contact a knowledgeable Atlanta employment lawyer to discuss your rights and obligations.

Sometimes, an employer’s course of action (as laid out in an unfavorable court opinion) can represent a clear case of “what not to do.” A recent FMLA interference and disability discrimination lawsuit in Macon makes for a pertinent example.

The employee, D.L. was an administrative coordinator for a Middle Georgia family services non-profit. The coordinator, who had significant arthritis, took a period of leave following her Sept. 2, 2020, neck surgery. After a Nov. 19 appointment revealed a need for additional surgery, the doctor declared the woman out indefinitely. Two weeks later, the doctor said the coordinator could return to work on Dec. 8, provided she did not do any pushing, pulling, or lifting over 10 pounds.

When Employers Can (and Cannot) Deduct Losses or Expenses from a Tipped Worker’s Pay Without Violating the FLSA

September 23, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Business owners face many business risks. One that is regrettably on the rise in the food service industry is the “dine and dash,” where customers consume food or drinks, and then leave without paying. The rise of this practice raises some important questions about who pays for dine-and-dashers’ purchases and when (or if) an employer can deduct the cost of a customer walkout from a tipped worker’s wages. As with any minimum wage or overtime compensation question, obtaining knowledgeable advice to ensure complete legal compliance is crucial. An experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer can give you the information you need to understand fully your rights and obligations.

While viral social media content and the FLSA do not regularly overlap, a recent TikTok video provides a real-life example of this issue of customer walkouts and deductions from a tipped worker’s income.

The September 8 video, released by a golf course beverage cart attendant, warned other service industry employees to be cautious when handing a customer a wireless device (such as an iPad or Android tablet) to complete paying for their purchases. Allegedly, a customer used trickery to dodge paying a $76 bill, a deceit the attendant did not discover until after the group was “long gone.”

The Importance of Understanding the FLSA’s Exemptions and Making Proper Exempt/Non-Exempt Classifications

September 16, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 13.3 million people held jobs in sales and related occupations in May 2023. This group includes, for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, both exempt and non-exempt employees. Employers should proceed carefully in classifying their sales workers, as misclassification can result in steep financial consequences. If you have questions about categorizing your sales workers (or about your own sales job,) it is well worth your while to consult an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer to ensure you are getting knowledgeable and reliable advice.

That array of 13.3 million sales workers can be divided into two broad groups: “inside” sales and “outside” sales. “Inside sales” generally refers to workers who sell remotely, such as via the telephone or the Internet, whereas “outside sales” typically refers to workers who meet customers face-to-face. For purposes of FLSA classification, inside sales workers generally are non-exempt while outside sales employees are generally exempt.

An inside sales worker can be exempt if the realities of their job place them within one of the law’s recognized exemptions, but employers should tread cautiously before trying to “shoehorn” their inside sales employees into an exemption. Misclassification errors are often very costly, as a recent unpaid overtime case from New England illustrates.

The Application of Federal Overtime Rules to Employers Using Flat-Rate and ‘Piecework’ Pay Models

September 10, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Whether you are an employer or an employee, it is important to recognize that the Fair Labor Standards Act imposes several limitations on an employer’s pay practices, and employers can run afoul of the law (and its accompanying regulations) in many ways. If you have questions or have identified a policy that may be illegal under the FLSA, do not delay taking the next step, which should include consulting an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer.

Accurately calculating overtime compensation is one area where many employers encounter problems. If an employer pays its non-exempt employers a single, universal hourly rate, calculating overtime compensation can be relatively straightforward, amounting to 1.5 times that hourly rate multiplied by the number of hours worked over 40.

Some employers do not pay workers in that way. They may pay their employees “by the piece,” which is a performance-driven form of compensation that pays based on the number of tasks a worker completes. They may also pay workers a flat rate for each day (or week) worked.

FMLA Rights, Workplace Discipline, and ‘Temporal Proximity’ in Federal Retaliation Cases

August 30, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Family and Medical Leave Act provides workers with many important statutory rights, including ones designed to protect employees from inappropriate workplace punishment for exercising their rights, or wrongful denial of benefits. These rights and protections are not unlimited, and they are not a “straitjacket” on employers preventing them from administering workplace discipline on workers who seek or use FMLA benefits. Employers may, in some situations, discipline – or even fire – a worker who has requested, has used, or is on FMLA leave. If you have questions about using FMLA benefits and issuing workplace discipline, get the advice you need by consulting a knowledgeable Atlanta FMLA retaliation lawyer as soon as possible.

Earlier this year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers federal actions in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama) looked into this issue of the interplay between workplace discipline and FMLA rights.

The employee, M.C., was a parks and recreation department worker for a city government in Florida. The employee received his requested FMLA leave forms in April 2018. City rules set a 15-day deadline for returning FMLA paperwork. M.C. returned his incomplete paperwork on July 12, more than three months after first receiving the forms.

Collective Actions Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Federal Court Jurisdiction in Georgia

August 23, 2024 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Collective actions (which are highly similar to class actions except they litigate workers’ Fair Labor Standards Act claims against their employers) are occurring more frequently. This reality serves as a reminder of the importance, as an employer, of ensuring complete compliance when it comes to the minimum wage, overtime, classification, and other pay practices covered by the FLSA. If you are a worker who has been denied the pay the FLSA requires – or you are an employer with questions about the FLSA and FLSA collective actions – you should make sure you have reliable answers and information. You can do that by getting your advice from an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer.

Like class actions, collective actions may include both named plaintiffs and additional plaintiffs who subsequently “opt-in.” Some employers, when facing collective actions far from their “home” base of operations, have used the presence of these “opt-in” plaintiffs to fight the collective action on jurisdictional grounds, including one employer that scored a successful outcome recently.

The employer, a Texas-based construction company, employed workers to construct, among other things, buildings that housed livestock. A Wisconsin employee sued the employer in a federal court in that state, alleging that the employer illegally underpaid him by wrongfully classifying him as exempt under the agricultural worker exemption.