Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Proposed New DOL Regulations on Overtime Exemptions Pose Challenges/Offer Employers an Opportunity to Address Other Potentially Misclassified Employees

November 2015
By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

The DOL’s proposal to more than double the minimum salary level for white collar workers – from $23,660 to $50,440 – may be finalized and put into effect any day now although expectations are that this will occur in a few months, sometime in the coming spring of 2016. When implemented the new regulations could “reclassify” more than six (6) million workers from exempt, to non-exempt status for purposes of overtime pay. Most employers have at least some employees whose status will change as a result of the new regulations.  However, some employers foresee dozens if not hundreds of their employees becoming non-exempt and thus entitled to overtime pay. The most obvious challenge these new regulations present involves paying previously exempt individuals, time and one-half their “regular rate of pay” for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek.  This will involve tracking all hours worked, meal and possibly rest breaks, sick days, etc. for previously exempt individuals who were paid by salary and worked unrecorded hours.  The failure to track hours worked and/or to pay time and one-half for overtime, will leave unprepared employers open to wage and hour lawsuits that have become so commonplace in recent years. Yet the sweeping changes these new DOL regulations soon will bring, present at least one important opportunity for proactive employers – the best possible circumstances in which to switch potentially misclassified employees from exempt, to non-exempt, without causing a noticeable stir.

In today’s legal environment, where class action wage and hour lawsuits abound, it is hard to find a single employer that can say with confidence that its employees all are properly classified exempt/non-exempt from FLSA’s and related state law overtime requirements. Indeed, a great number of employers secretly acknowledge known problems with at least some of their employee classifications.  However, the reason these employers do not act to correct the situation by reclassifying questionable workers currently treated as exempt, is that doing so will expose the fact that they have not been paying overtime to the employee(s) in question.  The rationale is somewhat understandable: why make a change that can result in claims for overtime going back 2-3 years (the potential limitations period under the FLSA)?  But this “ignorance is bliss” approach is likely to work only temporarily, as wage and hour lawsuits continue to grow at an alarming rate and plaintiff lawyers sniff out misclassified workers.  So while the new DOL regulations surely pose concerns for most employers, there may be no better time than now to bite the bullet and make changes to questionably classified workers amid the tumultuous reclassification of some six (6) million workers resulting from the new DOL regulations!

Frankly it does not matter whether the new regulations will have a specific impact on a particular worker or class of jobs.  The important thing is that sweeping changes are being made by the DOL.  Moving employees from exempt to non-exempt to fix past misclassification of their status, at the same time as changes to the regulations are causing massive numbers of workers to be reclassified, provides an easy answer for the change.  Employers asked by an employee why he or she was paid by salary yesterday but must now punch a time clock or fill out time cards, or why the employee now receives overtime pay but did not in the past, will have a simple, honest answer: the U.S. Department of Labor is changing the regulations and we as a company are reacting to those changes. 

The last time the DOL overtime regulations were changed (the first time in 50 years) was in 2004, during the Bush administration.  We assisted numerous employers in seizing the opportunity created by those changes, to make changes of their own to fix problems with their classification of exempt employees who probably should have been treated as non-exempt employees all along and paid overtime.  While there are no guarantees that this approach will not cause affected employees to ask questions, coupling these changes with DOL changes to its wage and hour regulations resulted in relatively smooth sailing and, more importantly, no lawsuits.  Today, 10 years later, these employers sit comfortably in having put their exposure to wage and hour lawsuits over employee misclassification and overtime claims behind them.


There are a number of additional measures an employer can take to minimize the chance of being challenged when reclassifying employees from exempt to non-exempt.  Normally a basic strategy can be prepared through a consultation meeting of no more than an hour or two.  For assistance with preparing for the new DOL regulations and/or to take advantage of their changes to evaluate a strategy to fix problematic exempt employee classifications, feel free to contact Wessels Sherman attorney James Sherman at (952) 746-1700 or email him atjasherman@wesselssherman.com, or arrange a teleconference or meeting with him by contacting Christine Beggan at chbeggan@wesselssherman.com.  

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Question: When is a Lawyer Not a Lawyer?

By: James B. Sherman, Esq. 

Answer:  When the lawyer does not do enough "lawyerly" things to qualify for the professional exemption from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The U.S. Department of Labor has long said that the determination of whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements, is not governed by job titles but by job duties.  A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, out of New York, is a somewhat surprising example of this rule in application to the legal field.  The case involved a class of so-called "contract lawyers" who sued for overtime pay for "document review" work they performed through a temp agency for mega law firm Skadden Arps.  The plaintiffs claimed their duties in reviewing documents were so mundane that "a machine could do them." Accordingly, although the plaintiffs were licensed professional attorneys they claimed that their duties did not meet the professional white-collar exemption and they were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA.

The appellate court refused to dismiss the case, noting that if the attorneys' duties could be performed by a machine they clearly would not be exempt professional employees.  If attorneys can be nonexempt and entitled to overtime pay, the same could apply to accountants, doctors, engineers and other "professionals" if their job duties fail to satisfy the exemption. This same principle applies equally to the executive and administrative exemptions, where the specific duties and not the title of the job determine whether or not it is exempt from overtime requirements. Much litigation - frequently class action litigation - arises out of employers' failure to recognize this principle.

For advice on determining exempt vs. non-exempt status, wage and hour audits, or competent defense against overtime claims, contact any of our Wessels Sherman offices in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, or Iowa and ask to speak to a shareholder in our wage and hour litigation team.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Unprecedented Winds of Change at U.S. Department of Labor Aim to Require Overtime Pay for Millions by “Reclassifying” Workers - from Exempt to Non-exempt and from Independent Contractors to Employees

July 2015
By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

Within the past month, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has taken two separate actions to greatly expand the reach of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require overtime pay for millions more workers.  The first action taken on June 30th, was the DOL's release of proposed regulations aimed at doubling the minimum salary needed to meet the so-called white collar exemption to the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements.  If the proposal becomes final it will result in the reclassification of an estimated 4.6 million workers from exempt to non-exempt status, entitling them to overtime pay.  The DOL's second action was taken on July 15th, when the Wage and Hour Division of the DOL released an "Administrator's Interpretation" addressing what was termed the "misclassification" of workers as independent contractors rather than employees.  This interpretation may result in many more workers who presently are treated as independent contractors, being reclassified as employees for purposes of the FLSA and, thus, entitled to overtime pay.

While many employers have heard about the DOL’s proposed new minimum salary for exempt employees, few have heard about its position on “misclassification” of independent contractors.  In either case, employers should brace for the impending changes that these new measures will soon bring.  In addition to keeping records on millions more workers who are expected to be entitled to overtime pay, all of those reclassified individuals represent a new pool of potential plaintiffs to join the ever growing surge of wage and hour lawsuits.    

1.       The Proposed New White Collar Exemption Regulations

This is only the second time in more than 50 years that the DOL has proposed revisions to its regulations implementing the exemption from minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees. The nearly 300 pages of bureaucratic data and legalese of the proposal can be summarized as follows:

  • More than doubling the minimum salary for the white collar exemption, from $455/week ($23,660 annually) to a figure equivalent to the 40th percentile of earnings for all full-time salaried workers.  The current estimate for the first quarter of 2016 when the proposed rule may go into effect, is a new minimum salary requirement of approximately $970/week ($50,440 annually).

  • Increasing the “highly compensated employee” definition from $100,000 to $122,148 annually (equal to the 90th percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers);
  • Automatic annual updates to these foregoing minimum salaries based on a fixed percentile of earnings or cost of living indicators; and
  • While not yet making specific proposals to modify the “duties test” for white collar exemptions, the DOL is seeking further comments from the public over its concern that some exempt employees may be performing a “disproportionate amount of non-exempt work.”

The DOL is accepting comments from the public on its proposed rule before it issues the final version. Timely comments must be recovered by the Department no later than August 29, 2015. To learn more about these proposed regulations and how they may impact whether employees currently regarded as exempt, may soon be non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay, attend our TIMELY WEBINAR (see below to register).

2.       The Independent Contractor Administrative Interpretation

According to this new interpretation individuals previously thought to be independent contractors rather than employees, will now be assessed under a new standard.  According to the DOL’s new interpretation, the key question in whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee for purposes of the FLSA is whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer or in business for him or herself. The interpretation goes on to list and describe the following six factors to be considered in determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor (with examples for each): (1) Is the work an integral part of the employer’s business?  (2) Does the worker’s managerial skill affect the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss? (3) How does the worker’s relative investment compare to the employer’s investment?  (4) Does the work performed require special skill and initiative?  (5) Is the relationship between the worker and the employer permanent or indefinite?  (6) What is the nature and degree of the employer’s control?  No single factor is determinative, and the interpretation states that these factors should all be interpreted within the broader concept of “economic dependence.” 

The DOL’s new interpretation openly declares that under the foregoing analysis most workers will be considered employees rather than independent contractors.  The close timing of these two measures highlights the DOL’s intention to expand the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements to millions more workers.  Employers should act now to prepare for the potential of having numerous exempt employees and/or independent contractors who soon may be eligible for overtime pay and all the many related concerns of tracking time worked, lunch breaks, work from home, etc. 

______________________________________________________________________________

To prepare for these sweeping changes or for assistance in determining whether your workers are properly classified as employees vs. independent contractors, or exempt vs. non-exempt, contact attorney James Sherman in our Minneapolis office, at (952) 746-1700, or email him at jasherman@wesselssherman.com.
Wessels Sherman's Minnesota 4-City Tour Kicks off in September - Coming to a City Near You!
 
This year's topics include:
  • Emerging Workplace Issues ("Ambush Election" Rule; Gender-related Issues Including Pregnancy, Transgender Employees and Same-sex Marriage; and Landmark Supreme Court Decisions on the ACA, Religion and EEOC Authority)
  • Background Checks and Hiring Practices
  • Disciplining and Discharging Difficult Employees
  • Essential Handbook Clauses 
  • Preparing for the DOL's New Regulations on Overtime Exempt Status in 2016
Presenters: James B. Sherman, Esq., Chad A. Staul, Esq. and Phoebe A. Taurick, Esq.

Cost: $150 First person
  $100 Each additional person from same company

skyscrapers_clouds.jpg
Seminars run from 8:00am-12:00pm in:
  • Duluth (Friday, September 18, 2015) - Comfort Suites, 408 Canal Park Drive, Duluth, MN 55802
     
  • Minneapolis (Tuesday, September 22, 2015) - DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel, 7800 Normandale Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN, 55439
     
  • Winona (Friday, October 23, 2015) - The Plaza Hotel & Suites, 1025 Highway 61 East, Winona, MN 55987
     
  • Brooklyn Park (Thursday, October 29, 2015) - Minneapolis Marriott Northwest, 7025 Northland Drive North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55428

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Back by Popular Demand - Wessels Sherman Employment Law Seminar!!!

Logo Only
Thursday, October 1st, 2015

Fall Harvest Employment Law Seminar


Join Wessels Sherman attorneys and our distinguished guest speakers at beautiful Villa Bellezza winery on Lake Pepin - a short distance south of the Twin Cities on the Mississippi River. Attendees will enjoy a highly informative day of learning in the relaxed and picturesque setting of a working winery.  
Register to attend this exciting event to reap a bounty of valuable information, materials and useful forms to address many of the latest issues facing employers today, and also receive the following:  
  • ***Hear from the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and an Administrative Law Judge for the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division***
     
  • Continental breakfast and sumptuous lunch, included 
  • Chance to win valuable door prizes - including a gift certificate for dinner at the award-winning Harbor View Café
     
  • Continuing Education Credit
Who Should Attend?  Business owners, executives, human resource professionals, attorneys, accountants, managers and supervisors from every industry.  

Topics and Schedule

7:45AM-8:30AM  Registration/Continental Breakfast
8:30AM-9:20AM Emerging Trends and New Legal Developments - Key court decisions, new laws and regulations and their implications for employers. Topics include:
  • Landmark Supreme Court decisions on ACA, religion and EEOC authority
  • Paid leave trends and unpaid FMLA developments
  • Local developments in Minnesota & Wisconsin on new legislation and regulations, ADA and workers compensation (Sherman and Staul)
9:20AM-9:50AM  Gender-Related Legal Issues and Solutions - Equal pay, pregnancy, transgender employees, same-sex marriage and more. With public figures ranging from celebrities to the Supreme Court taking a stand on  gender-related workplace issues and the EEOC stepping up its enforcement, they are more in the public eye than ever.  Learn best practices for avoiding legal claims when dealing with these tricky workplace issues. (Taurick)
10:20AM-10:30AM BREAK 
 
10:30AM-11:00AM  Preparing for the DOL's New Regulations on Overtime Exempt Status in 2016 - If the DOL's proposed new FLSA regulations go into effect in 2016, as many expect, employers can expect nearly 5 million fewer exempt employees. Learn how these changes will drastically impact employer pay practices and what employers can do now to prepare. (Sherman) 
11:00AM-12:00PM  Panel Discussion with Distinguished Guest Speakers:  
-Kevin Lindsey, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights  
-Maria J. Selsor, Administrative Law Judge of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Equal Rights Division  

Hear from key representatives of two of the most important administrative agencies to employers in Minnesota and Wisconsin. In addition to initiatives and developments within the MDHR and ERD, our distinguished speakers will discuss how some employers find themselves in trouble while others avoid it, when it comes to the laws these agencies enforce.   
12:00PM-1:00PM  LUNCH (provided on site) 
 
1:00PM-1:30PM  Medical Marijuana and its Effects on Workplace Policies - Minnesota's recently enacted Medical Cannabis Act legalizes the use of medical marijuana.  Learn how this law interplays with Minnesota's existing laws regarding the use of lawful consumable products, Minnesota's Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act and how to develop policies and practices to handle the interplay. (Staul)   
1:30PM-2:10PM  Working Effectively with Outside Counsel - Learn from an  experienced attorney who has worked both as inside and outside legal counsel to major corporations. Mr. Van Domelen's engaging style, punctuated with real-life examples from the trenches, is sure to entertain. This presentation will help you make your attorneys look good while making you a superstar in your organization. (Van Domelen) 
2:10PM-3:00PM  Whistle While You Work - Why are retaliation and whistleblower claims among the fastest growing in America and what can employers do to discipline "deserving employees" without being sued?(Sherman)
3:00PM-3:10PM  Q&A/Concluding Remarks 
3:10PM-3:15PM  Prize Drawings
*If you experience any difficulties while registering, please contact us.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

DOL Issues Long-Awaited Proposed Rule on White Collar Exemptions to Overtime Pay Under FLSA


For just the second time in more than 50 years the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed revisions to its regulations implementing the exemption from minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees. These long-awaited revisions were published just today, more than four months after the DOL originally indicated, and are comprised of nearly 300 pages of bureaucratic data and legalese.

Among the significant changes proposed by the DOL to its regulations on exempt status under the FLSA are:
  • Increasing the minimum salary level to meet the exemption, from $455/week ($23,660 annually), to a figure more than double this amount, equivalent to the 40th percentile of earnings for all full-time salaried workers, which would be somewhere between $921/week ($47,892 annually) based on 2013 figures, and approximately $970/week ($50,440 annually) based on current estimates of the earnings of the 40th percentile in the first quarter of 2016, when the proposed rule may go into effect if it is not altered in its final form;
  • Increasing the "highly compensated employee" definition from $100,000 to $122,148 annually (equal to the 90th percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers);
  • Annual updates to these foregoing minimum salaries based on a fixed percentile of earnings or cost of living indicators; and
  • While not making specific proposals to modify the "duties test" for white collar exemptions, the DOL seeks further comments from the public over its concern that some exempt employees may be performing a "disproportionate amount of non-exempt work."
The DOL is accepting comments from the public on its proposed rule before it issues the final version. Timely comments must be recovered by the Department no later than August 29, 2015. To learn more about these proposed regulations and how they may impact whether employees currently regarded as exempt, may soon be non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay, attend our TIMELY WEBINAR (see below to register).


Rescheduled for Thursday, August 6, 2015 from 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm!

Don't Get Caught Owing Tens or Hundreds of Thousands in 
Overtime Pay in 2015:
NEW GAME CHANGING WHITE COLLAR EXEMPTION REGULATIONS 
PROPOSED BY THE DOL!!
How to Avoid Overtime Liability for White Collar Workers Under the DOL's Proposed New Regulations and Inventive New Tactics by Plaintiff Lawyers. 


Presented by James B. Sherman, Esq. and Sean F. Darke, Esq.
Cost: $75   Sean Darke, Attorney

Join Wessels Sherman attorneys James B. Sherman and Sean F. Darke for this highly informative webinar focused on helping employers learn how to maintain exempt employment status for employees. In this webinar, we will discuss:
  • Deciphering the newly proposed, 2015 White Collar Exemption Regulations that radically alter exempt/non-exempt salary criteria;
  • Examining new and inventive ways plaintiff lawyers are challenging exempt status of everything from HR Directors, to professionals (even attorneys);
  • Understanding nuances of which salary deductions are and are not permissible to preserve exempt status;
  • Personal liability as it relates to owners, officers and supervisors;
  • Best practices and practical tips.
                                                   
HUMAN RESOURCES:
1.00 (General) HRCI credit approved.                               

ACCOUNTING: 
1.00 CPE credit approved.

Friday, May 29, 2015

Plaintiff Loses Case Claiming ADA Violation Over Loss of Driving Privileges for DWI Violations

May 2015
By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

An individual with multiple DWI arrests over roughly 16 years, sued the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety claiming that his repeated loss of driving privileges violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This fellow apparently felt so “in the right” that after losing in federal district court he appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Alas, he lost again. However, the mere fact that anyone could claim his civil rights are being violated by being taken off the streets as a public safety risk, suggests that our politicians may have gone too far in defining protected individual rights under the ADA. Specifically, when passing the ADA Congress excepted current drug users from its protections but left alcoholism as a protected “disability.” While alcoholism is a recognized medical condition, including it in a law such as the ADA presents many unworkable problems for employers and government agencies alike. Unlike most other civil rights laws, the ADA not only prohibits discrimination of disabled individuals; it also mandates they be provided with “reasonable accommodations.” The concept of reasonable accommodations has never been without its challenges, but it makes sense in the case of most disabilities (e.g. ramps for persons in wheelchairs). Not so when it comes to alcoholism.

The recent court decision does not address what accommodation the plaintiff could possibly have been seeking in this goofy lawsuit. Both the trial and appellate courts dismissed the suit because the plaintiff did not allege he was “disabled.” Presumably, he wanted to be allowed the privilege of driving – and putting others’ lives at risk – despite his numerous DWI arrests. Whether he sought to accomplish this through a legally mandated “accommodation” or by proving his license revocations amounted to disability discrimination, is anyone’s guess. The point is that had this individual sufficiently pleaded in his complaint that he was in fact an alcoholic, the courts would have had to undertake the bizarre task of assessing whether the Commissioner of Public Safety violated his rights by discriminating against a disabled individual, or unlawfully failed to reasonably accommodate his disability.

For now, at least, the citizens of Minnesota and those who drive our state’s roads can be thankful that the plaintiff in this case lost. We can also find some comfort in the hope that had this case gotten past the pleading stage, the courts would have found that allowing someone with this individual’s driving record to continue driving, would not be a “reasonable” accommodation. Let’s all also hope that the repeat offenders of the world are never allowed to hijack a well-intended law such as the ADA, for such an unworthy cause.

Questions?
Contact Attorney James Sherman of Wessels Sherman’s Minneapolis office at (952) 746-1700 or email jasherman@wesselssherman.com

Thursday, May 14, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Courts, Not EEOC, Decide Whether the EEOC Satisfied its Legal Obligation to Attempt to Resolve Alleged Unlawful Employment Practices Prior to Filing a Lawsuit

May 2015
By: James B. Sherman, Esq.

On April 29 the Supreme Court ruled in Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cannot police its own compliance with statutory requirements that it “conciliate” its investigative findings before it can sue employers in court.  Mach Mining involved an employer’s appeal of a very unfavorable ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, which held essentially that the EEOC answers to no one in regards to whether it has satisfied its statutory obligation to explore informal resolution of claims with employers.  The Supreme Court’s decision to review this matter created great anticipation among employment attorneys and employers alike, hoping for a more favorable outcome.  Employers unfortunate enough to have found themselves pursued by the EEOC routinely find that little effort is made to avoid litigation, especially in what the agency designates as “priority cases.”  Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that whether the EEOC has satisfied its mandate to conciliate before it litigates, is a matter for the courts and not the EEOC to decide.  While this was welcome news to employers and their legal counsel, it is tempered by the Court’s conclusion that the EEOC’s conciliation efforts are subject only to very limited review by the courts. 

The underlying facts in Mach Mining involved a woman who filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that she was not hired as a coal miner because of her sex.  After conducting an investigation, the EEOC determined that there was substantial evidence to conclude that the employer illegally discriminated against the woman and other female applicants on the basis of their sex.  The EEOC sent a letter to the employer informing it of this determination and stated that it would begin conciliation.  Approximately a year later, the EEOC sent another letter stating that conciliation was unsuccessful, and filed suit against the employer.  The Court’s decision does not state what, if anything, happened in the time between the two letters, but the employer asserted that the EEOC did not fulfill its obligation to attempt to resolve the matter before filing its lawsuit. 

Conciliation involves attempts to resolve employment claims through “informal methods” prior to resorting to litigation.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, sex, religion, etc., as well as the ADA (disability) and ADEA (age), all contain the same mandate that when an EEOC investigation results in a finding of “substantial evidence” that a violation has occurred, the EEOC must not initiate a lawsuit until after it first conciliates with the employer in an effort to resolve the matter short of litigation.  The statutory language clearly indicates that Congress wanted the EEOC to resort to litigation as a last resort, only after first trying to resolve cases through informal means.  Although the Court held that the EEOC does not have the final word on whether or not it has fulfilled its duty to conciliate, judicial review will be extremely limited: The EEOC must inform the employer about the specific allegation, describing what the employer has allegedly done and what employee or class of employees have suffered as a result (this will generally be covered in the letter announcing that it found reasonable cause).  Additionally, the EEOC must try to engage the employer in some form of conversation to give the employer an opportunity to remedy the alleged wrong.  An affidavit from the EEOC stating that it did both of these and it was unsuccessful will generally be sufficient to show that it fulfilled its obligation to conciliate, and a court’s review is limited to determining whether these two things happened—it will not go into the substance of any conversations.

Many employers and their lawyers argue that today the EEOC has become much more litigious than in the past, as well as more aggressive in pursuing claims to court with more creative legal theories.  Is it possible now that it knows its behavior is subject to judicial scrutiny the EEOC will be ever so slightly more reasonable in conciliating claims with employers?  Time will tell.

Questions? Please contact James B. Sherman at (952) 746-1700 or jasherman@wesselssherman.com