Wage & Hour Issues

How a Workplace’s Time Clock Rounding Policy May Constitute a FLSA Violation

September 25, 2023 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A case from outside Georgia serves as a useful reminder to employers and employees alike regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act’s rules regarding “rounding” time a worker works each day. The overarching concept that you need to know is this: if an employer’s rounding policy results in an outcome where, over time, workers are not compensated “properly for all the time they have actually worked,” then that policy may represent an FLSA violation. If you have questions about a time rounding policy, make sure to get reliable answers by consulting an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer.

The recent case involved a Kansas City-based health system and a large class of its workers. The health system used a popular computer software-based timekeeping system, Kronos Workforce Timekeeper.

The employer had a rounding policy where a “clock-in” or “clock-out” that occurred within six minutes of the scheduled shift start or end time was rounded. In other words, a worker who clocked in at 8:04 for an 8:00 shift was paid as if she arrived at 8:00. Similarly, a worker who clocked out at 6:05 for a shift ending at 6:00 was paid as if she left at 6:00.

When the Time Spent Putting on and Taking off Specialized Attire or Protective Gear Is — and Isn’t — Compensable

August 25, 2023 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An internet meme about lawyers mines humor from the frequency with which attorneys answer questions with “It depends.” Truthfully, “it depends” very often is the right answer, as many legal disputes that appear similar may yield vastly differing results depending on any number of (or sometimes just a few) key factual distinctions. A reply of “it depends” reflects the many wrinkles and nuances within areas of the law, and that includes wage-and-hour law. That’s why, if you have questions about whether something is or is not compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act, it is wise to seek out knowledgeable answers from an experienced Atlanta wage-and-hour lawyer.

As a case in point, we can compare and contrast two cases regarding the compensability of time spent donning and removal of safety gear.

In the more recent unpaid hours dispute, the workers were a group of rig hands who worked for an oil company in Pennsylvania. As part of its set of safety rules, the employer required its rig hands to put on “flame-retardant coveralls, steel-toed boots, hard hats, safety glasses, gloves, and earplugs.”

The U.S. Labor Department Issues New Guidance on the Rights of Breastfeeding Workers and the Responsibilities Their Employers Have Toward Them

May 24, 2023 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A few months ago, this blog looked at the impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act on remote workers, including new moms who are breastfeeding or expressing milk during the workday. Today, we’re going to look at a related but separate group: pumping moms working at the employer’s worksite. Whether an employee is or is not remote, she has certain rights under federal law. So, if you’re an employer seeking to ensure compliance or you’re a worker who has been mistreated regarding your pumping, it is well worth your while to contact an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer to get answers to your questions.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a field assistance bulletin on this topic. Field assistance bulletins don’t carry the force of law, but the courts may rely on them as a persuasive (but not precedential) authority.

That May 2023 bulletin followed in the wake of President Biden’s signing into law the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act) in late December 2022.

A New Wage and Hour Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court and Its Potential Impact on Some High-Earners in Georgia

February 28, 2023 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an important new ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the standards under which a worker does (or does not) qualify as a salaried exempt employee for purposes of overtime compensation. The 6-3 decision in favor of an oil rig worker clarifies that just because an employee earns a very high income, that does not automatically mean that he/she is an exempt employee. Regardless of how much you make, if you think that you meet the legal standards for a non-exempt employee, then you may be entitled to overtime pay and if your employer didn’t compensate you accordingly, you potentially can, with the aid of the right Atlanta unpaid overtime lawyer, win compensation in a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit.

The worker, M.H., worked as a tool pusher on an offshore oil rig. That job typically entailed the employee working 12-14 hours per day, seven days per week for a stint of four weeks, followed by four weeks off. The employer paid the pusher a daily rate of $963. All totaled, the worker earned more than $200,000 annually.

Neither the worker nor the employer argued that 29 CFR 541.604(b) applied to the pusher’s circumstance. That’s the federal regulation that says that if a worker receives extra pay based on his/her work hours, he/she can still be an exempt employee so long as there was a “reasonable relationship” between the worker’s periodic salary and the amount the worker actually earned each period.

The Impact of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Break Rules on Georgia Employees Who Work from Home

February 14, 2023 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Today, remote work is more common than ever before, with much of explosion coming in the last 2-3 years. With that vast growth of people working from home comes new and different ways that employers can run afoul of federal wage and hour laws. If you’re a non-exempt employee working from home and your employer has denied you the leave, breaks, or other benefits that federal law mandates, check with a knowledgeable Atlanta wage and hour lawyer to find out how best to protect yourself.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued an important new “field assistance bulletin” document discussing this cutting-edge issue implicating the Fair Labor Standards Act, break rules, and remote workers who are non-exempt employees.

Field assistance bulletins are documents that lack the force of a statute or a regulation, but they do represent important reflections of Labor Department policy and the federal government’s view on the correct interpretation of various laws and/or regulations.

What Happens if My Employer Takes an Automatic Pay Deduction for Meal Breaks But I Did Not Actually Get My Break?

January 24, 2023 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In wage and hour law, as with any area of the law, there are issues that arise with elevated frequency at certain moments in time. (For example, a few years ago the courts saw a flurry of employee-versus-independent-contractor misclassification cases involving exotic dancers.) More recently, an issue before multiple different courts involves employers taking automatic meal-break deductions, regardless of whether the workers got their full break (or any break at all) or not. When this happens, it may constitute a Fair Labor Standards Act violation for which you may be entitled to compensation. An experienced Atlanta wage-and-hour lawyer can tell you more about whether your situation represents a violation of the law.

One of the most recent incidents occurred to our north, where Ohio workers initiated a class action against their employer, a medical company that owns hospitals, rehab centers, and clinics. According to the workers, the employer had a practice of automatically deducting 1/2 hour from their hours to account for each worker’s meal break. The alleged problem was, however, that the realities of the workplace (especially during periods of understaffing) meant that workers often had to work through lunch or were able only to take abbreviated meal breaks. Even when those circumstances arose, the employer still took the automatic 30-minute deduction, according to the complaint.

On that basis, the workers alleged that the employer violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime wages the workers earned. The class that the workers proposed was an expansive one; namely, “all current and former hourly, non-exempt direct care employees of defendant who had a meal break deduction applied to their hours worked in any workweek where they were paid for at least forty (40) hours of work.”

That Time You Spend Logging On (and Off) Your Work Computer May Be Compensable Under Federal Law

October 24, 2022 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Today, more and more workers do their jobs via a computer. As most computer-based workers know, getting into (and out of) the programs and/or applications necessary to do your job can be time-consuming. What you may not know, however, is that the time spent waiting on a computer could be time that’s compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Whether you’re an employee or an employer, a knowledgeable Atlanta wage and hour lawyer can help you assess your situation for compliance with the law.

While not from here in Georgia, a recent FLSA case regarding computer-based workers shows how employees can be owed pay for these log-in and log-out times. The case pitted a group of Las Vegas-based customer service call center agents against their employer.

The employer required the call center agents first to log into the employer’s timekeeping program before logging into any other work-related programs. Allegedly, due to a series of variables, this process of reaching the timekeeping program could take as much as 20 minutes, with the average time ranging somewhere between seven and 12 minutes.

The U.S. Department of Labor Just Announced a New Proposed Rule for Independent Contractor Classifications: What it May Mean for You

October 17, 2022 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

For many workers in this so-called “gig” economy, one of the biggest issues they (and the entity that retains their services) must confront is whether that worker is an independent contractor (who is not covered by many of the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act) or an employee (who, unless exempt, generally is covered by the law.) Often, these classifications are inappropriate and the worker in question, based on the nature of his/her job, qualifies as an employee, not an independent contractor. When that happens, you may have a claim for compensation wrongfully denied to you, meaning you should get in touch with a knowledgeable Atlanta worker misclassification lawyer right away to discuss your circumstances.

A new proposed rule that the U.S. Department of Labor announced earlier this month could make it harder for employers to classify workers as independent contractors. The new rule seeks to limit independent contractor status only to those workers who, “as a matter of economic reality, are not economically dependent on their employer for work and are in business for themselves,” according to the Labor Department.

The existing rule has five “economic realities” to guide the classification of workers as independent contractors versus employees. The rule split those five into two “core factors,” which were the nature and degree of the hiring entity’s control over the work and the worker’s “opportunity for profit or loss,” and three lesser factors, which were the degree of skill the work required, the extent to which the hiring entity-worker relationship was or was not a permanent one, and whether the worker’s work was part of an integrated unit of production.

Dismissal of Georgia Judge’s Petition for Mandamus to Collect Back Pay Affirmed on Appeal

September 10, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Everyone wants to be paid fairly, from the most modestly paid fast food worker to the most highly compensated executive. Even judges want to be paid every penny that they are due. In addition to state and federal laws regarding wage and hour issues, there may be other remedies available to a worker who believes that he or she has not been paid fairly. An Atlanta employment law attorney can explain the process of seeking back pay or other compensation that you may be due if you suspect that your employer has acted illegally with regards to payment of your salary or wages.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a state court county judge who filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the defendants, a county and several of its commissioners. According to the plaintiff, she was owed back pay and other relief due to the defendants’ violation of Georgia Constitution of 1983, Article VI, § VII, Part V. The constitutional provision upon which the plaintiff relied states, in essence, that an incumbent judge’s salary, allowance, or supplement is not to be decreased during his or her term of office; the plaintiff averred that the county had improperly calculated her salary, resulting in an illegal reduction in her overall compensation each year from 2007 to 2017.

The trial court ruled in the defendants’ favor, holding that the plaintiff’s mandamus action was barred by gross laches but, even if it was not, mandamus was not an appropriate vehicle for the relief sought by the plaintiff and, even if mandamus was proper, there was no merit to the plaintiff’s claims.

Georgia Employee Was Entitled to Pursue Quantum Meruit Pay, Even Though His Employment Contract Was Too Vague to Enforce

June 5, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Each Atlanta employment law case is unique, with its own set of facts and issues. In addition to matters such as sexual harassment and employment discrimination, the issue of compensation is fairly common.

Disputes about an employee’s pay can occur at many different pay levels, from employees who maintain that they were not paid even the federally mandated minimum wage to professionals who claim that they were not compensated according to a written or oral agreement between them and the business for which they worked. At the end of the day, everyone – from the lowest paid to the most highly compensated individuals – want a fair wage for the work they have done.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who had an unpaid clerking position with the defendant law firm while he was attending law school. After obtaining his license, the plaintiff accepted a job as a “contract associate” with the firm. Via an employment agreement (in the form of a letter), the law firm agreed to compensate the plaintiff for his services by paying him a part of the fee earned by the firm upon the resolution of cases in which he was involved. The exact amount of compensation was not specified but was to be determined on a case by case basis.