On June 1, 2010, the Department of Labor announced that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff’s Office in Phoenix, AZ agreed to pay $2,059,807 to 1,690 detention officers and sergeants for unpaid pre-shift meetings.  The meetings were daily and the amount awarded covers time worked from November 1, 2007 to March 4, 2009. 

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® law firm have extensive experience recouping unpaid wages and fighting for employees who are misclassified as exempt from overtime.  To learn more about the firm’s Unpaid Wages and Overtime Practice, click here.

On June 16, 2010, the Department of Labor issued its second Administrator’s Interpretation of 2010, defining “clothes” under section 3(o) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C § 203(o).   Under this new Interpretation, “clothes” refers to apparel and not protective safety equipment generally worn over one’s clothes.  Employees required by law to don and off protective gear must be paid for the time spent doing so.  A copy of the Administrator’s Interpretation is available here.

The employment attorneys at The Employment Law Group® have extensive experience prosecuting claims for unpaid wages including individual claims and class actions.  To learn more about TELG’s Non Payment of Wages Practice, click here.

On June 3, 2010, the Department of Labor announced that Tyson Foods has agreed to pay employees for donning and doffing protective wear as well as time spent washing and sanitizing themselves and their gear.  Tyson Foods also agreed to compensate employees for the time spent walking and waiting that occurs throughout the workday.  In addition, Tyson Foods will pay $500,000 in overtime back wages to 3,000 employees at its Blountsville, Alabama plant. 

For more information about the Fair Labor Standards Act and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

On March 26, 2010, Law360 reported on U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Chasanow’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., which we discussed here.  The opinion answers a question of first impression in the Fourth Circuit, holding that the Fair Labor Standard Act’s anti-retaliation provision protects disclosures to state labor agencies made in good faith. 

In the article, Mr. Woodfield points out that “under FLSA if you have a good faith belief in your claim, you are protected.”  When reporting violations to a state agency, “you don’t have to be correct, but you have to have a reasonable belief.”  Mr. Woodfield, the plaintiffs’ attorney, is a Principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For more information about Mr. Woodfield and the firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

On March 24, 2010, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge Deborah Chasanow denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in Randolph v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc..  This case presented an important question of first impression for the Fourth Circuit, namely whether employees, who were compensated with commissions based on sales, could complain to a state wage and hour board and be protected under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) even if they were not entitled to overtime if they held a reasonable, good faith belief that they had been misclassified as commissions based employees and that they had been inadequately compensated for overtime work performed for the defendant. 

Plaintiffs Sharon Randolph and Tami Thompson filed a complaint with the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR), claiming that ADT failed to pay them overtime.  Randolph and Thompson were paid in commission for sales, however they thought they should have been compensated on an hourly basis and that they were entitled to overtime.  After being notified of the complaint, ADT terminated Randolph and Thompson for violating company policy by disclosing confidential information to the DLLR.  After their termination, the plaintiffs filed the present suit asserting that ADT violated the FLSA’s prohibition against retaliation and that their termination was wrongful under the Maryland public policy exception to at-will employment, known as an Adler tort claim. 

Relying in part on the only U.S. court of appeals case to address the application of § 215(a)(3) to state law, Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 1999), Judge Chasanow sided with the plaintiffs and will allow the case to go to trial.  A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available here.

For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm and its Employment Law Practice, click here.

On March 3, 2010, Judge Harold Baer, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class action status to a suit brought against a construction company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The suit, filed by current and former employees of Raines & Welsh & Sons, Inc., claims the company did not pay its employees for all hours worked and failed to pay them one and a half times their regular rate for overtime.  The plaintiffs also allege that the company failed to pay prevailing wages to employees working on government contracts, as required by state and federal law.  The action applies to individuals who worked for the company as far back as July 8, 2006, and covers at least 60 employees.  The case is Ferrer et al. v. Raines & Welch & Sons Inc., et al., and a copy of the certifying order is available here.

For more information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Non-Payment of Wages Practice, click here.

Staples has agreed to a $42 million settlement to resolve 12 wage-and-hour class action lawsuits related to its misclassification of assistant store managers.  The settlement comes after several years of litigation, and the claims of unpaid overtime go back to 2002.  The settlement includes an agreement that Staples will not appeal a February 2009 jury decision awarding $4.9 million to 343 Sales Mangers.  It also resolves a pending case in Massachusetts state court, as well as 10 other cases previously centralized in the District of New Jersey under by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Non-Payment of Wages Practice, click here.

Late last week a class action suit brought by UPS delivery drivers against their employer was settled for $12.8 million.  The suit alleges that the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors and wrongfully denied benefits and overtime as a result.  At least 83% of the $12.8 million is to go to the approximately 660 employees.  The plaintiffs are expected to request about $2.02 million in costs and fees.  A copy of the complaint is available here.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Unpaid Overtime Practice, click here.

The settlement was reached in a putative class action suit originally filed on April 17, 2008.  The suit, Danieli et al. v. IBM Corp., alleged that IBM misclassified thousands of employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime pay requirements.  The plaintiffs claim that as a result of this misclassification, they were underpaid and failed to receive credit for overtime compensation for their retirement plan as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The settlement provides $7.5 million including up to $2.5 million going towards attorney’s fees and $150,000 for litigation expenses.  The settlement also stipulated that employees in California will receive a higher share due to the stronger claims made under California state law.

According to the settlement agreement, the motivation for the settlement on both sides included the uncertainty in the duration of future litigation as well as amount recovered.  Excess costs predicted and accounted for but not spent as well as un-cashed settlement checks will be donated to the Habitat for Humanity.

A copy the Settlement is available here.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Overtime Practice, click here.

This week the Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari in Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., thereby allowing the 2006 jury verdict in favor of 1,424 store managers for unpaid overtime to stand.  Among the issues raised on appeal was whether store managers were correctly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The plaintiffs, current and former store managers, alleged that Family Dollar failed to pay its store managers overtime in violation of the FLSA.  Family Dollar claimed that as store managers, the employees were exempt from overtime pay.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the store managers were misclassified as exempt since they spent 80-90% of their time performing non-managerial tasks such as stocking shelves, running cash registers, unloading trucks, and performing janitorial duties.  The store managers were managers in title only and therefore not exempt from overtime wages prescribed under the FLSA.

The Eleventh Circuit also held that the district court was within its discretion in denying Family Dollar’s motions to decertify the plaintiffs’ class action status because the court carefully followed the two-stage process for evaluating a collective action and found that the evidence demonstrated that the 1,424 managers in the class were similarly situated in at least 14 key areas.

That the Supreme Court denied review is important to potential plaintiffs in unpaid overtime class action suits.  It lets stand the important lenient standard for initial certifications of class action status and ensures that employers cannot take advantage of employees by granting them a greater title than their position deserves.  This protects employees from being deprived of the important rights granted to them under the FLSA.

For more information on the FLSA and The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Overtime Practice, click here.