Chicago Overtime Lawyer Blog

With employment lawsuits nationwide rising about 200% over the last decade, it is more important than ever for employees to know their rights as workers. Employment attorneys have cited growing awareness of employment law as a major cause of the increase in employment lawsuits.

Other reasons cited are recent provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that have extended the statute of limitations from two years to three if the employee can show that their employer intentionally violated the FLSA. Proving this can be as easy as showing that the employer failed to keep accurate time records, a common complaint in overtime lawsuits. Providing such proof can also double the amount of unpaid wages employees can collect, another motivator for the increase in employment lawsuits.
Another recent provision by the FLSA is the requirement for defendants, if they lose the case, to pay all attorneys' fees and costs. According to employment attorneys who specialize in FLSA lawsuits, the amount of damages and fees an employer could end up paying is a huge motivator to settle cases. It is also a big reason for employees to file wage and hour lawsuits.

According to the Federal Judicial Center, New York federal courts have seen a greater rise in employment lawsuits than the rest of the nation. The Southern District alone saw an increase of 626% from 2003 to 2012. Although the Southern District of New York had 682 new cases filed between October 2, 2011 and September 30, 2012 (compared to 94 new cases filed in 2003) it does not reach the top as the court with the highest new cases filed. That honor goes to the Southern District of Florida with 1,304. The Northern District of Alabama comes in second with 1,029 and the Southern District of New York takes third place.

Among all of the 94 federal district courts, wage and hour lawsuits comprised 3% of all civil lawsuits filed during the last fiscal year. For the Eastern District of New York, that rate reaches 10% while the Southern District of New York has 6.5 wage and hour lawsuits for every 10 civil lawsuits filed.

Continue reading "New York Federal Courts See Sharp Rise in Employment Lawsuits" »

While many interns don't expect to get paid for the work that they do, many also do not expect to work 11-hour days performing the same tasks as paid employees. Such is allegedly the case with a class-action of interns for Hearst Corporation, who allege that they did the same work as paid employees and, as such, should be compensated accordingly.

Hearst does not deny that the interns sometimes allegedly worked as much as 11 hours a day doing the same work as paid staffers. However, the class action lawsuit was denied based on insufficient evidence to support the commonality requirement. The only thing the plaintiffs had in common was that they were unpaid interns working for Hearst Corporation. They worked for a number of different, including Harper's Bazaar, Esquire, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire and Redbook among others. They had different jobs and performed different tasks which, according to the U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, is not enough to fulfill the commonality requirement.

The plaintiffs advised the Court to consider the "nature of the work that interns performed" to determine commonality. Judge Baer points out that this "vague advice ... eschews rather than addresses, the glaring problem here, that the Court cannot resort to any common proof to determine the very 'nature' of the interns' work".
In his ruling denying the plaintiffs class-action status, Judge Baer cited the Walmart v. Dukes Supreme Court decision. The highly contentious ruling found that the plaintiffs failed to support the commonality requirement when they could not prove a company-wide policy of discrimination.

Judge Baer also cited two lawsuits since then, in which the courts have granted class-action status. For example, he says, in Meyer v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, the court found commonality because the proposed class members carried out their duties for the defendant based on the same policy, the same training, the same job description, and the same procedures. In Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc., the judge found commonality based, not only on the uniform classification of the plaintiffs, but also the uniform description of their duties.

In his ruling, Judge Baer pointed out that these cases differ from the Hearst case in that the "plaintiffs in Meyer and Jacob were able to show a company-wide policy regarding employee duties in addition to a company-wide policy regarding a certain employee classification, whereas here ... there is nothing more than a corporate-wide policy of classifying the proposed class members as unpaid interns based on academic credit letters."

Judge Baer further enumerates that "evidence of a corporate-wide policy of classifying the proposed class members as unpaid interns in insufficient, as that policy alone cannot answer the liability question, which turns on what the interns did and what benefit they received during their internship."

Continue reading "Unpaid Magazine Interns Attempt to Pursue Class Action Claims For Unpaid Overtime and Wages Rejected" »

This blog has previously discussed cases where employees sue, not only for unpaid overtime, but for money lost in illegal tip pools. According to the labor law, employees are entitled to the full benefit of the tips they earn and cannot be induced to share that money with other employees.

One company, which has recently been taken to court for this alleged illegal practice, is Coyote Ugly Saloon Development Corp. The class-action lawsuit was filed in Tennessee Middle District Court but now involves current and former employees of the company from all over the country. The plaintiffs are suing for unpaid overtime as well as an illegal tip pool.

According to the lawsuit, security guards for the company were permitted to claim five percent of the tips earned by the other employees, such as bartenders. Certain security personnel were permitted to claim 10 percent of the tip pool if they served as "barbacks" (if they assisted bartenders, restocked the bars, and cleaned the counters). The company argues that the security guards fulfill an important role in assisting clients and promoting the overall theme of the bar. In this way, the company claims, the security personnel earn their share of the tips. The bartenders disagree.

Now the plaintiffs are claiming retaliation from their employer as a result of their involvement in the lawsuit. Such retaliation is also prohibited by law. One of the plaintiffs, Sarah Stone, who served as a bartender-dancer at the Coyote Ugly facility in Oklahoma City, alleges that one of the regional managers threatened her in a status updated to his Facebook page. The manager, Daniel Huckaby, admitted to being intoxicated on the night that he posted the alleged threat on Facebook. He says he has no memory of putting up the post.

Continue reading "Coyote Ugly Sued For Alleged Illegal Tip Pools and Failure to Pay Overtime" »

Employers must be vigilant in ensuring that their hourly employees are paid for all of the time they spend doing work-related activities. SoulCycle, which is known for its cardio-heavy 45-minute workout classes, is about to pay for neglecting to do this, according to a new lawsuit.

A former instructor for the fitness company, Nick Oram, alleges that they only paid their instructors for the time spent teaching classes. Instructors were also allegedly expected to train, develop routines, attend meetings, and create playlists but they were allegedly not paid for any of the time spent doing that work. The lawsuit claims that these pay practices are not consistent with the pay requirements as put forth by California and New York labor law.

Oram said in a statement that his goal in the lawsuit is "to ensure that SoulCycle pays all of the hard working and dedicated instructors what they deserve and compensates them fairly for all hours worked."

SoulCycle denies the allegations. A spokesperson for the company said, "We strongly believe that the compensation and the benefits we provide to our team are amongst the best in the industry and that we are in full compliance with the law."

Continue reading "SoleCyle Sued By Instuctors in Overtime Class Action" »

Once a lawsuit has been filed, some employers will try to find ways out of the legal mess they have created for themselves. Often, this only leads to a bigger mess. Such is the case with Schneider Logistics, a contractor for Wal-Mart.

After a group of employees filed a class-action lawsuit against the company, employees were reportedly called into meetings with company officials and the company's attorneys. The attorneys allegedly interviewed the workers about their working conditions in the warehouse. The employees were allegedly told that these meetings were voluntary, yet they were allegedly asked to sign legal documents at the conclusion of their session. They were also allegedly not told that any information they gave during these meetings could be used against them in their lawsuit against Schneider Logistics.

The lawsuit at issue here was filed in 2012 and involves allegations of unpaid overtime as a result of an alternative workweek schedule, and violations of meal and rest break provisions.

United States District Court Judge Christina Snyder determined that these meetings were "fundamentally misleading and deceptive". When reaching this decision, she cited the fact that Schneider never informed employees that their signed statements could be used against them in court. She therefore banned Schneider Logistics from using the employees' signed statements in the lawsuit. The company is also barred from further communication with employees involved in the lawsuit unless it has permission from the court.

Schneider has reportedly accepted the judge's ruling without dispute.

Continue reading "Meeting with Members of a Class Action Found Improper" »

As this blog has discussed, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires any bonuses or other compensation an employee might receive to be included in their regular rate of pay when calculating overtime. According to a class action lawsuit, Aeropostale allegedly regularly failed to do this for its non-exempt employees.

The lead plaintiff, Portia Daniels, filed a lawsuit against Aeropostale Inc., in Novemeber 2012 for allegedly under-paying overtime to non-exempt store employees by failing to include bonuses in their regular rate of pay. Daniels, who has been working as a non-exempt store manager for Aeropostale, alleges that she has regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the proper overtime compensation as stipulated by the FLSA.

Daniels filed the lawsuit after she received a letter from Aeropostale in March 2012 which referenced a 2011 class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was Sankey v. Aeropostale and it accused the clothing company of failing to include bonus pay in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime hours for California managers who worked between 2007 and 2012. The letter said that Aeropostale had found that overtime had potentially been under-calculated at times. Enclosed with the letter was a check for the amount of the under-payment.

In her own lawsuit, Daniels points to the statements from Aeropostale's payroll director from deposition in the Sankey case. According to Daniels, these statements demonstrated that Aeropostale had a uniform practice of under-paying overtime. The lawsuit alleges that this uniform practice affected thousands of employees nationwide.
Aeropostale argued that the payroll director's testimony was specific to the Sankey case and to California store managers only.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup sided with Daniels though, and agreed to conditionally certify a class of all current and former non-exempt Aeropostale employees nationwide who had worked overtime since November 2009 and received a non-discretionary bonus.
Judge Alsup specified in his certification order that the key issue in a Daniels's case is not whether Aeropostale failed to pay overtime at all, "but whether they failed to pay in a timely manner." The judge says in his order, "Potential plaintiffs may have been under-compensated as early as November 2009 but failed to receive their corresponding overtime adjustment until 2011 or later, when defendants discovered the error during the Sankey litigation".

Continue reading "Overtime Collective Action and Class Action Claims Filed Against Aeropostale" »

You may think that paying employees by the number of garments they make ("piecework") died at the beginning of the twentieth century but that turns out not to be the case. Despite the federal requirements for paying employees either a salary or by the hour, some garment companies are still paying their employees by the piece.

The most recent company to come under scrutiny for this illegal employment practice is O & K Apparel Inc. The company was recently ordered by Julie Su, the California Labor Commissioner, to pay $113,000 to its 110 employees in overtime wages. Additionally, the company is to pay $61,450 in penalties and $307,250 for issuing improper itemized/deduction statements.

California labor code requires garment manufacturers to provide accurate itemized statements showing total hours worked by the employee. If the employee is paid by the piece, then the statement must reflect both the number of pieces produced as well as the total number of hours worked.

Labor Commissioner Su said in a statement, "Piece rate payment cannot be used as an end-run around the basic requirement that all workers ... receive a just day's pay for a hard day's work, including overtime pay for overtime hours worked. In addition, California law requires itemized wage statements so employees know how much they worked and what they earned. In this case, the pay stubs did not include any of that information, which makes it hard for workers to know when their wages are being stolen right out from under them."

City Wide Insulation of Madison and Walmart are also among the companies that have come under fire for allegedly illegally paying their employers by the piece and refusing to pay overtime. City Wide Insulation was made to pay about $19,000 to each of its employees and the Walmart lawsuit is still pending. Hopefully, with more lawsuits like these, the era of employees being paid piecework will truly come to an end.

Continue reading "Paying for Work Piece by Piece Violates Overtime and Minimum Wage Laws" »

As this blog has discussed, it is important for employers, not only to make sure their workers get paid overtime, but that their overtime rate is properly calculated. If an employee receives any sort of commission or bonus, those need to be included when calculating the employee's overtime rate of pay.

T-Mobile is currently facing a class-action lawsuit of call center employees who allege that their overtime was improperly calculated. The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court in Nashville, was brought by six call center employees who worked in T-Mobile's call center in Nashville, Tennessee and Colorado Springs, Colorado.

The complaint alleges that "T-Mobile violated the FLSA by failing to include several payments in their "regular rate of pay when calculating overtime compensation. Plaintiffs allege that this has resulted in the plaintiffs being routinely underpaid for overtime work. These payments include shift differentials, queue differentials, gross-up payments, and all non-cash bonuses and awards made in connection with T-Mobile's incentive program for call center employees, such as Do More Get More, points at an in-house store, Inner Circle, and products."

The complaint further alleges that T-Mobile call center employees have been required to perform work before the beginning of their shifts, after the end of their shifts, and during their legally mandated meal breaks. According to the lawsuit, these duties include "booting up computer programs, reading company emails and memoranda, etc."
T-Mobile, on the other hand, denies that it requires or even permits hourly call center employees to work off-the-clock.

The plaintiffs encourage anyone who worked at a T-Mobile call center anywhere in the United States at any time since December 5, 2008 to join the class. The affected titles include Customer Service Representative, Customer Service Representative II, Retention Representative, Technical Support Representative, Financial Service Representative, Financial Care Representative, among other related occupations.

Continue reading "Call Center Employees of T-Mobile Sue for Unpaid Overtime" »

As this blog has discussed, breaks are just as important as overtime. According to the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are required to provide their workers with one ten-minute break for every four hours worked. If an employee misses a break for any reason, they must be paid one hour of their normal wage for each day that a break is missed.

Gina, a registered dental assistant for Small Care Dental Clinic in California, enjoyed these mandated breaks until the company was bought out by Coast Dental. The day after Coast Dental acquired the company, the registered dental assistants were all trained on their new computer systems. The next day, all six of the non-registered dental assistants were fired. According to Gina, the remaining three registered dental assistants were then "left holding the bag" because the work load didn't change.

Additionally, the dental assistants were made to clean the clinic. While Small Care had provided a cleaning service to come in at night to clean the clinic, Coast Dental put an end to that and instead provided the clinic with cleaning supplies. The dental assistants, after missing their breaks because they were too busy with patients, now had to mop the floors and sterilize the operating rooms before they could leave. This required significant overtime and, although they did get paid for their overtime hours, Coast Dental complained about the extra pay and it added a lot of stress to the workers. Gina says that none of them signed up for the work but they were allegedly told by their office manager "that if we wanted to work there we had no choice".

According to Gina, when the dental assistants complained that they weren't getting their breaks, they were simply told "then take a break". But there was no one to relieve them and the dentists and patients continued to require assistance. Allegedly, the dental assistants frequently didn't have time to go to the bathroom and they would get in trouble just for going to the break room for a drink.

The dental assistants were unable to add their breaks to their time sheets because it was a time clock system where they punched in and out at the beginning and end of their shifts and punched in and out for their lunch breaks. Gina says, "We all knew it was against the law to deny our breaks but everyone was afraid to complain". Gina however, is no longer afraid to complain. She reported Coast Dental to the California labor board and has filed a complaint with an employment attorney.

Continue reading "Dental Practice Sued for Allegedly Refusing to Allow Dental Assistants to Take Breaks" »

Many servers, including waiters and bartenders, earn a very low hourly wage and they depend on the tips they receive from patrons to earn a living. Some employers though, illegally withhold gratuity from their employees' pay. This is allegedly the case with Mallozzi Group, the Rotterdam-based restaurant and catering empire.

The Mallozzi family first entered the food industry in 1965 when they opened the Villa Italia bakery in Schenectady. They then began opening restaurants and catering operations all over the area until they expanded into an empire.

A former server for the Mallozzi Group has filed a 12-page class-action complaint against the company in Albany County Supreme Court. The lead plaintiff, Ryan Picard, worked as a server for Mallozzi Group for most of 2011 and all of 2012. He alleges that a mandatory 20% "service personnel charge" was added onto customers' bills, but that money was never distributed to him or the other servers. Allegedly, the servers were paid a flat hourly rate and were instructed by Mallozzi Group that, when a customer asked if they received tips, they were to reply that they did.

The lawsuit focuses on the fact that the restaurant and catering chain did not make it reasonably clear to customers that the extra charge was not a gratuity. Had Mallozzi Group done so, the servers would have no claim upon the money.
The lawsuit is seeking to represent everyone who worked as a server for Mallozzi Group in the past six years. Picard and his attorneys believe that the damages could exceed $1 million, plus interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Nine defendants were named in the suit, including co-owners John and Joseph Mallozzi.

The complaint cites New York Labor Law which states that "A charge purported to be a gratuity must be distributed in full as gratuities to the service employees or food service workers who provided the service.

Bobby Mallozzi, one of the owners of the restaurant chain, insists that the company has not done anything wrong. He maintains that "Mallozzi's and all of our companies adhere to all of the New York Labor Law and its guidelines in its utmost strictness". He dismisses Picard's claims as the "wrongful accusations" of a disgruntled employee. He also says that "this lawsuit has absolutely no merit, and we will vigorously fight it."

Continue reading "Mallozzi Restaurant and Catering Sued For Allegedly Withholding Tips" »

Misclassification of employees is a problem seen more and more often in the workplace these days. Recently, the used car retailer, CarMax, has come under fire for allegedly engaging in this illegal practice. The company allegedly misclassified its auto buyers as exempt from overtime.

The buyers however, are allegedly not professionals using their own knowledge and experience to make judgments on their purchases for CarMax. Instead, they allegedly merely collect information on used vehicles for entry into the computer system so that appraisals can be calculated. They allegedly must carefully adhere to CarMax's detailed policies and practices and follow step-by-step procedures. Because of this, they allege they can be classified as neither professionals, executives, nor administrators, which are the three categories that the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides for qualifying for overtime exemption.

In order to fit into the professional qualification, an employee must have a particular set of skills or training which is necessary for them to perform their job. Since the car buyers merely collected information and followed CarMax's rules, rather than making their own decisions, they do not qualify for the professional classification. For the executive category, an employee must have other workers who directly report to them. The auto buyers do not oversee or manage any other employees and so they do not fit into this category. If an employee directly supports an executive, then that person could qualify for the administrative category and thereby qualify for overtime exemption. The car buyers however, did not directly support any executives and therefore do not fit into the administrative category.

The lawsuit alleges that, because of their large workload, which included regularly traveling to and attending car auctions, the buyers worked a significant amount of overtime on a weekly basis. Mike Luchini, one of the plaintiffs, alleged that the car buyers worked "through early mornings, meal times, and late evenings" for CarMax.

Hourly, non-exempt employees are entitled to one and one-half times their normal hourly rate for each hour of overtime worked in excess of eight hours a day or forty hours a week and double their normal hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of twelve hours in a day. Additionally, they are entitled to meal and rest breaks. This includes an uninterrupted one-half hour break for each five hours of work. If an employee does not take this break for any reason, the employer is required to compensate the worker with the equivalent of one hour of the employee's regular hourly rate for each day that a break is missed.

Continue reading "CarMax Sued For Allegedly Misclassifying its Auto Buyers as Management Employees to Avoid Paying Overtime" »

Cold calling is a method of recruitment whereby direct contact is made (either orally, in writing, electronically, or by telephone) with an employee who has not otherwise applied for a job. This method has proven to be much more effective than other forms of recruitment.

Upon receiving a cold call, employees are given access to employee benefit information from rival companies. They can then use this information to negotiate a higher pay rate with their current company, or they can choose to move to the new company. They can also pass this information on to their colleagues who can then use it to negotiate a higher salary for themselves, even if they don't receive a cold call. Companies generally provide employees with a higher base pay in order to provide an incentive to stay when cold calls are a possibility.

A lawsuit against Apple, Google, Pixar, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Adobe alleges that the companies formed a pact not to cold call each other's employees. The lawsuit was filed by four former employees, two who worked for Adobe during the relevant time period, one for Intel, and one for Intuit. The lawsuit is seeking class action certification with the class defined as "everyone employed by Defendants in the US on a salaried basis during the period from January 1, 2005 through January 1, 2010".

According to the lawsuit, the alleged conspiracy began in 2005 between Lucasfilm and Pixar (at the time, Steve Jobs controlled Pixar, although Apple had not yet bought Lucasfilm) and consisted of three parts:
1) each company allegedly agreed not to cold call the other company's
employees,
2) each company allegedly agreed to notify the other if making an offer to an
employee of the other company if that employee applied for a job without having
received a cold call, and
3) each company allegedly agreed that if either company made an offer to such
an employee of the other company, neither company would counteroffer above
the initial offer.

These alleged agreements were not restricted by geography, job function,
product group, or time period.

The alleged agreement grew until it included Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel and, finally,
Intuit. None of the employees of any of these companies were ever aware of this alleged agreement. The plaintiffs allege that the agreement kept their salaries at an artificially low level and they are seeking three times the damages caused by the companies' agreements, the costs of bringing the suit, and attorneys' fees.

The Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted an investigation into the employment practices of the defendants beginning in 2009. In 2010, the DOJ filed two complaints (one against Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar, and the other against Lucasfilm and Pixar). In both complaints, the DOJ proposed final judgments in which the seven companies agreed that the DOJ's complaints "state a claim upon which relief may be granted" under federal antitrust law.

Since then, technology workers have brought civil lawsuits against the tech companies, which could expose further embarrassing communications between top executives in the firms.

However, US District Judge Lucy Koh has refused to certify the class of plaintiffs. She says that the pact affected workers in too many different ways to allow them to be all lumped together. However, she also said that the plaintiffs' lawyers can present additional evidence to convince her that a class-action lawsuit has merit. Certification of a class-action would grant the plaintiffs much greater leverage when it comes to claiming financial settlements from the companies.

The companies deny any wrongdoing, although they have agreed not to enter into any similar agreements.

Continue reading "Federal Court Declines to Certify Antitrust Case Alleging Conspiracy by Tech Companies Not to Poach Employees" »

As this blog has discussed, the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that all employees be paid the standard overtime rate (1 1/2 their normal hourly rate) for any and all hours worked in excess of eight hours a day and forty hours a week. There are exceptions though, whereby certain employees can qualify as exempt from overtime pay. According to the FLSA, these exceptions include employees working in a professional, administrative, or executive capacity. However, they must fulfill certain requirements in order to fit these classifications.

JPMorgan Chase is currently getting sued by two former appraisers who were allegedly misclassified as exempt from overtime. Chase allegedly classified the appraisers as administrators and, on that basis, refused to pay them overtime.
The employees' duties involved appraising the value of property but they did not have the authority to make administrative decisions about the value of the properties they evaluated. Rather, they were given formulas to determine the value of the properties and they were not permitted to deviate from those formulas. Because they did not have the authority to make decisions based on their own judgment and experience, the appraisers do not fulfill the requirements for classification of overtime exemption. Some of the appraisers who would qualify to participate in the class, should it get certified, are "review appraisers" which means they merely look over the work of others in their department. This makes them little more than "glorified proofreaders" according to Bryan Schwartz, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, and, as such, they cannot qualify for overtime exemption.

In order to qualify for bonuses, the appraisers had to meet certain billing goals, which required them to work overtime on evenings and weekends. The lawsuit alleges that Chase regularly had its appraisers working more than 70 per week in order to meet these benchmarks.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Santa Ana, is seeking millions of dollars in unpaid overtime for about 150 appraisers.

Continue reading "JPMorgan Chase Being Sued by Former Appraisers for Unpaid Overtime -- Our Chicago FLSA Lawyers Bring Class Actions for Unpaid Overtime for Misclassified Employees" »

Employers will frequently misclassify employees as exempt from overtime when, in fact, the employees do not meet the requisite qualifications for overtime exemption. In that case, it is important for employees to understand labor law and the rights which are protected by law. It is also important to consult a wage and overtime attorney if you suspect your employer may be taking advantage of you. Someone with expertise in the area can explain it more reliably than your HR department might.

Anna, a case worker for a medical management company, claims she has experienced these problems. She alleges that she regularly works 10-hour days and that, for many years, she worked as much as 12 hours a day. She works for an hourly rate, does not receive a salary, and allegedly does not supervise any other employees. According to the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) this means she is not qualified for overtime exemption.

According to the FLSA, an employee must do work that is mainly administrative (she must directly support an executive), professional (requiring certain skills or education level), or executive (she manages others) in nature. Anna's job as a case worker requires her to comprise reviews of a hospital and report back to her company on a daily basis. While this makes her a professional and might make it look as though she qualifies for overtime exemption, the fact that she does not earn a salary means that the FLSA requires her to be qualified as a non-exempt hourly employee.

Not only is she allegedly not getting paid for her overtime but Anna is now also allegedly having her pay cut whenever she needs to take personal time. She says the company allegedly used to let her take an hour off every so often for things like doctor's appointments but now, when she tries to do so, they allegedly act as though she's doing something wrong. As she points out though, "they conveniently forget about the overtime pay."

When Anna confronted her company's HR department and asked how it could qualify her as exempt when she didn't supervise anyone, she was allegedly merely told that labor law was more complicated than that. So Anna set out to educate herself. She tried contacting her state's labor board but, as she hasn't heard back, she is moving on to find a reliable employment attorney who can help her fight for her rights.

Continue reading "Employees Misclassified as Exempt Still Must be Paid Overtime" »

With the country in a jobless recovery, many employers have been taking advantage of the low availability of jobs to make their employees work longer hours for less pay. In such situations, it is more important than ever for wage and hour attorneys to defend workers' rights.

According to the National Economic Research Associates Report, titled "Trends in Wage and Hour Settlements: 2012 Update", wage and hour lawsuits went up in 2012 compared to 2011 with overtime lawsuits comprising most of the claims. California wage and hour settlements, as well as those filed in New York, make up most of the settlements in 2012.

Employers nationwide paid a total of 18% more in wage and hour settlements in 2012 than they did in 2011. The total amount paid out in 2012 settlements was $467 million, bringing the total settlements in wage and hour cases over the past six years to about $2.7 billion. Of the wage and hour lawsuits that were filed, 102 were settled in 2012 before reaching trial. To put that in perspective, 446 lawsuits were settled between January 2007 and December 2012. The number of settlements in 2012 makes up almost 25% of the total number of wage and hour cases settled over the past 6 years.
The average settlement in 2012 was about $4.8 million, which is up from 2011's $4.6 million average. However, more money is being paid out largely because there are more plaintiffs.

The average settlement per plaintiff per class year actually fell from $1,500 in 2011 to $1,300 in 2012. While some lawsuits threw the curve by averaging as much as $25,000 per plaintiff, those cases were abnormal. California and New York were the states that saw the most money paid in settlements.

From the time a lawsuit was certified as a class to the time the lawsuit ended, the average class period lasted five years.

2013 is also shaping up to be a big year. First Republic Bank has agreed to pay more than $1 million to settle a lawsuit involving almost 400 employees after the U.S. Department of Labor found that certain employees had been treated as exempt from overtime.

Continue reading "National Economic Research Associates Report finds: "Wage and Hour Lawsuits Went up in 2012"" »