Eastern District Court Approves FLSA Settlement Agreement After Restaurant Engaged In “Time Shaving”

By ,

SPG

In Excellent Pancake, Inc. v. Giannattasio, Civil Action No. 18-cv-176, 2018 WL 3913109 (E.D. Pa. August 15, 2018), the Court approved a settlement agreement to the extent that the agreement releases Defendants from claims that fall within the statutory and common law causes of action. Plaintiff in the case worked as a waitress at Defendant’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant engaged in “time shaving” by deducting time from server’s paychecks for breaks that the servers did not take. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime when she worked more than forty hours per week.

A majority of courts have held that bona fide FLSA disputes may only be settled or compromised through payments made under the supervision of the Secretary of the Department of Labor or by judicial approval. A proposed settlement agreement may satisfy judicial review if it is a “fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions”. Such an agreement resolves a bona fide dispute if its terms “reflect a reasonable compromise over issues such as back wages” and the court will determine whether the agreement is fair and reasonable to the plaintiff.

In this case, the Court found that the agreement resolved a bona fide dispute because the agreement paid the amount of back wages allegedly owed. Further, the Court found that the terms of the settlement agreement were fair and reasonable because the agreement awards the claimed unpaid wages along with liquidated damages and attorney’s fees.

For more information, call our Philadelphia overtime lawyers in Philadelphia at The Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

  Category: FLSA, Wage and Hour Disputes
  Comments: Comments Off on Eastern District Court Approves FLSA Settlement Agreement After Restaurant Engaged In “Time Shaving”
  Other posts by

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that Helicopter Pilots are not Exempt Under the FLSA

By ,

SPG

In Pignataro v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that that helicopter pilots did not fall under professional employee exemption. 593 F.3d 265 (3rd. Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs in this matter were helicopter pilots for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to one-and-one-half their hourly rate for all time worked in excess of forty hours. Defendant claimed that both Plaintiffs qualified for an exemption to this general requirement known as the professional employee exemption.

In order to qualify under the professional employee exemption, an employee’s primary duties must require “work requiring knowledge of an advance type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship, and from training in the performance or routine mental, manual or physical processes.” This exemption is meant to be narrowly applied against the employer and is primarily applied to employees in an academic or scientific setting, such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, and teachers.

The Court held that the pilots did not qualify under this professional employee exemption because the pilots were not required to obtain academic degrees or spend any significant time in a classroom in order to obtain their license or certification. Most of the training was done though in-flight instruction, and the few written tests required did not qualify as “prolonged.”  Thus, the Court held that the specialized knowledge and unique skill of the pilots was not sufficient to qualify under the professional employee exemption.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Appeals in Courts
  Comments: Comments Off on Third Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that Helicopter Pilots are not Exempt Under the FLSA
  Other posts by

Middle District of Pennsylvania Rules Employees Do Not Qualify for Motor Carrier Act Exemption to the FLSA

By ,

SPG

In Mazzarella v. Fast Rig Support, LLC, the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that truck drivers who primarily transported water from various fracking sites within Pennsylvania did not qualify under the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the FLSA.  823 F.3d 786 (M.D. Pa. 2016). Plaintiffs claimed that they often worked in excess of forty hours, but only received overtime when they exceeded forty-five hours in a single week.  Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to 150% of their hourly wage for any hours worked above forty. There are various exceptions to this overtime requirement including employees “to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service.” These exemptions, including the one at issue, must be construed narrowly against the employer, thus the defendant bears the burden of establishing “plainly and unmistakably” that the employees fall within this exemption.

The Motor Carrier Act exemption required Defendant to show that the drivers’ transportation of water was part of a continuous stream of interstate travel. When analyzing this issue, courts refer to various factors including the following: (1) whether and to what extent a product pauses in a warehouse or other location during transportation before reaching its final destination; (2) whether the product is altered in any way during its transport; (3) the employer’s intent concerning the delivery of the product at the time the transportation commences; and (4) whether the employer’s business involves an integrated system of interstate shipments.”

In an attempt to satisfy these factors, Defendant presented a DOT certificate, which authorized the drivers to engage in interstate commerce, an online article stating that most fracking water is trucked out of Pennsylvania into Ohio, and lastly, a spreadsheet indicating that certain shipments of water were tracked and bound for specific destinations in Pennsylvania. The Court found that none of this evidence “plainly and unmistakably” established that the employees were engaged in interstate commerce, and thus rejected Defendant’s argument and refused to apply the Motor Carrier Act exemption.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Employment Law, FLSA
  Comments: Comments Off on Middle District of Pennsylvania Rules Employees Do Not Qualify for Motor Carrier Act Exemption to the FLSA
  Other posts by

Eastern District Dismisses Breach of Contract Claim Against Former Employee for Alleged Violation of Non-Compete

By ,

SPG

In Sales Benchmark Index LLC v. DeRosa, SBI sued DeRosa after he resigned from the company and went to work for another company. No. CV 18-2680, 2018 WL 3918090, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 16, 2018). SBI claimed DeRosa was in violation of the non-compete provision within his employment agreement by providing the same or substantially the same duties at the new employer; however, SBI did not allege the subsequent employer was a competitor of SBI, but that DeRosa himself was competing. The relevant portion of the agreement stated:

“Employee shall not directly or indirectly, in any Capacity, engage in Restricted Activities for a Competing Business[.]” “Restricted Activities” are “work activities, duties and/or responsibilities” that are “the same as, substantially similar to, or include,” the type of activities an employee had with SBI, including “sales and/or marketing advisory and/or consulting services.”

The Court’s analysis of this issue required a resolution to whether or not DeRosa was providing the same or substantially similar services for the subsequent employer, as he did when he was with SBI. To classify as a competing business, thereby creating a potential violation of the non-compete, the agreement defined a “Competing Business” as:

[A]ny Person in the business of providing sales and/or marketing advisory and/or consulting services, including businesses that supply, manufacture, produce, design, sell and/or market, as applicable, products and/or services which are the same or substantially similar to the products and/or services that [SBI] … supplied, manufactured, produced, designed, sold and/or marketed during the Reference Period. Businesses that engage in Competing Business include … the Employee operating Employee’s own business in any Capacity.

SBI attempted to argue DeRosa should be considered a “Competing Business” for purposes of an alleged breach of the non-compete. The Court refused to accept SBI’s argument, that the agreement prevents DeRosa from doing the same or substantially the same duties for a competing business. The Court noted that nowhere in the complaint did SBI allege the DeRosa ran his own business.

Since the Complaint failed to show DeRosa was not personally competing with his new employer, and SBI did not claim the new employer is a competitor, the Court dismissed the breach of contract claim for a violation of the non-compete.

Philadelphia contract lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. protect employees’ right to work. For assistance in any type of employment law matter, call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia office, where we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or contact us online.

Unlimited Geographic Restriction in Non-Compete Agreements may be Void

By ,

SPG

Non-compete agreements incident to an employment relationship are common place in Pennsylvania. Non-compete agreements prevent employees from working for competitors, but the restriction must be reasonable in both the duration and the geographic area. See Socko v. Mid-Atl. Sys. of CPA, Inc., 633 Pa. 555, 569, 126 A.3d 1266, 1274 (2015). Since some businesses stretch nationwide or even worldwide, some non-competes attempt to prevent an employee from working for any competitor anywhere. However, the geographic restriction should be determined by the employee’s duties or sales territory, not the employer’s overall market. See Boldt Machinery & Tools v. Wallace, 366 A.2d 902, 909 (Pa 1976).

Usually when an employer’s geographic restriction is too broad, the court will modify the restriction to better fit the employee’s duties or territory. Sidco Paper v. Aaron, 351 A.2d 250, 254 (Pa. 1976). Despite this, some over broad geographic restrictions may be determined to be void and will not be modified. Adhesives Research v. Newsom, No. 15-0326, 2015 WL 1638557 (M.D.Pa. April 13, 2015).

In Adhesives Research v. Newsom, the former employee’s sales territory included the western half of the United States, but the non-compete included a restriction anywhere employer’s products were sold worldwide. The Court refused to tailor the agreement to create a reasonable geographic location. The Court explained that when an employer utilizes an overly broad geographic restriction, although a specific geographic location could easily be determined based on the employee’s duties, the agreement should be found void with no modification.

For more information, call the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our non-compete lawyers represent clients in Philadelphia.

Pennsylvania District Court Holds that Plaintiff was Exempt from Overtime Compensation Under the PMWA

By ,

SPG

In Baum v. Astrazeneca LP, the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiff was employed in a purely administrative capacity and thus exempt from overtime compensation. 372 Fed. Appx. 246 (W.D. Pa. 2010). Plaintiff, a former pharmaceutical sales representative for AstraZeneca, filed for unpaid overtime wages under the PMWA. Plaintiff worked as a pharmaceutical sales specialist assigned to promote and visit with surrounding physicians. During these visits, Plaintiff would provide meals, promote the newest products, and address other medical areas all in an attempt to sell AstraZenenca products. In total, Plaintiff regularly worked sixty to seventy hours a week, travelling, setting up the meals, and promoting these products. Plaintiff brought a claim under the PMWA for unpaid overtime compensation for the hours in excess of forty that she worked.

The PMWA provides an exemption from overtime compensation to an employee who is “employed in a bona fide administrative capacity.” This exemption requires the following: “(1) a salaried compensation is at least $250 per week, exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities; (2) the employee’s primary duty consists of the performance of office or nonmanual work directly related to the management policies or general operation of his/her employer or the customers of the employer; and (3) primary duty requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.”

The Court held that the Plaintiff satisfied all three factors of this administrative capacity test and therefore was exempt from overtime compensation. Plaintiff earned more than $250 a week, her primary duty was nonmanual work related to the general operation of AstraZenaca, and since she spent most of her workday unsupervised and had discretion in how she set up the promotions and events, the third prong was satisfied. Therefore, the Court held in favor of AstraZeneca and rejected Plaintiff’s claim for overtime compensation.

If you have been denied overtime wages, the experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office Of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green will fight to get you the compensation you deserve. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Pennsylvania District Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Claim for Unpaid Overtime for Time Spent Taking Protective Equipment On and Off

By ,

SPG

In Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., Rodney Tyger, an employee of Precision Drilling Corp., brought a suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) seeking compensation for the amount of time it took to put on, and take off, personal protective equipment as well as compensation for the time it took to walk from the personal protective equipment changing area to the post-shift safety meeting location. Tyger v. Precision Drilling Corp., 308 F.Supp. 3d 831 (M.D. Pa. 2018). Precision Drilling Corp. argued that Tyger was not entitled to compensation for putting on and taking off personal protective equipment, or for the time it takes to walk between the area designated for putting on and taking off personal protective equipment and the post-shift safety meeting locations. Conversely, Tyger argued that Precision Drilling Corp. willfully violated the FLSA which entitled him to compensation.

In its argument, Precision Drilling Corp. cited to the Portal-to-Portal Act, which created two exceptions to the FLSA’s mandated compensation. The exception includes, “walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity or activities which such employee is employed to perform….”Id. at 841. The Supreme Court of the United States has weighed in on what constitutes “principal activity or activities” which are excluded from the Portal-to-Portal Act exception to the FLSA’s manded compensation as, “all activities which are an ‘integral and indispensable part of the principal activities.’” Id. (citing Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513 (U.S. 2014)).  Therefore, “an activity is integral and indispensable to the principal activity that an employee is employed to perform if it is an intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.” Id. at 841.

The Court analyzed whether putting on and taking off personal protective equipment was an “integral and indispensable” aspect of employment. The Court found that when dealing with hazardous chemicals, employees of Precision Drilling Corp. put on and took off personal protective equipment while on the clock. The Court denied Tyger’s Motion for Summary Judgment claiming an issue of material fact existed as to how toxic the oil-based mud, a biproduct of oil and gas drilling, was to the employees and whether it necessitated putting on and taking off personal protective equipment.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Employment Law, FLSA, Wage and Hour Disputes
  Comments: Comments Off on Pennsylvania District Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Claim for Unpaid Overtime for Time Spent Taking Protective Equipment On and Off
  Other posts by

Pennsylvania District Court Grants Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant in FLSA and PMWA Wage Violation Claim

By ,

SPG

In Matthews v. BioTelemetry, Inc., the Court found that the facts of the case did not create a plausible inference that Plaintiff was “based in Pennsylvania”, as is required for the application of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). Matthews v. BioTelemetry, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-561, 2018 WL 3648228 (E.D. Pa. 2018). Plaintiff, a Virginia resident, began working for Defendant in 2011. Plaintiff initially worked as a Cardiac Specialist in Defendant’s Norfolk, Virginia office but was ultimately promoted to Remote Holter Technician in 2017. Although Plaintiff worked in the Norfolk office, Defendant’s principal place of business was in Malvern, PA. In this role, Plaintiff generally worked a total of 47.5 hours per week and occasionally on weekends. For wage purposes, Defendant classified Remote Techs, Plaintiff’s position, as “not eligible to receive overtime pay” while In-Person Techs were entitled to overtime wages. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the PMWA for unlawfully failing to pay overtime compensation. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s PMWA claim.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff was not an employee under the PMWA and specifically argues that independent contractors are distinct from employees and are not entitled to overtime compensation under the PMWA. In addition, Defendant stated that Plaintiff was not “based in Pennsylvania” for purposes of the statute. In deciding whether an individual is “based in Pennsylvania”, the Court employed a five-factor test derived from the Wage Payment and Collection Law (“WPCL”) which includes examination of: (a) employer’s headquarters; (b) employee’s physical presence; (c) extent of employees contact with Pennsylvania employer; (d) employee’s residence; and (e) employees ability to bring his claim in another forum. Plaintiff made only a few allegations which would enable plausible inference that Plaintiff was based in Pennsylvania for purposes of the PMWA. First, Plaintiff pointed to the agreement he entered into when taking the Remote Tech position which said Pennsylvania law was governing. Second, Plaintiff said he was supervised by the Malvern, PA office. Third, Plaintiff had to report to the Malvern, PA office on occasion. Lastly, Plaintiff had to respond to e-mails that originated from the Malvern, PA office. The Court found that the allegations did not create a plausible inference that Plaintiff was based in Pennsylvania for purposes of the PMWA and thus, granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Philadelphia employment lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. have been serving clients throughout Pennsylvania for over 50 years. Our team of dedicated has a long history of successful outcomes in a vast array of varied employment law cases.

Call us today at 215-574-0600, or contact us online to see how we can help you with your employment legal issues. Our offices are conveniently located in Center City Philadelphia, allowing us to serve clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Pennsylvania District Court Rules Employer Could Not Credit Purported Premiums Included in Its Lump Sums Towards Overtime Compensation as Required by the FLSA and DOL Rules.

By ,

SPG

In Hickman v. TL Transportation, LLC, 318 F. Supp. 3d 718 (E.D. Pa. 2018), former employees brought a class action lawsuit alleging their former employer failed to properly compensate them for overtime hours worked under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”).

Plaintiffs claimed that although they often worked in excess of eight hours each shift, Defendant would only pay them $160 for each day worked, regardless of how many hours they actually worked. Defendant argued that under the FLSA, the lump sum paid to employees should be credited to any amount owed to Plaintiffs because the payment included a premium for overtime hours, which is recognized under the FLSA. The employer explained they determined the $160 lump sum payment based on the expectation that each employee would work ten hours a day, providing compensation for eight hours plus two hours of overtime compensation. However, the Court ultimately rejected Defendant’s argument, explaining a lump sum premium to employees must still take into account the amount of hours actually worked by the employee. Evidence showed that the employees often worked in excess of ten hours most work days.

The Court noted Defendants’ pay policy failed to provide an incentive to reduce employee hours—contrary to the goal of Congress in passing the FLSA to reduce overtime hours and create more employment opportunities. Therefore, the lump sum to employees could only be considered a “day rate” and the employer could not credit the alleged “premium” towards overtime compensation owed to the employees for any week they worked in excess of 40 hours.

For more information, call our Philadelphia employment lawyers for Fair Labor Standards Act in Philadelphia and South Jersey at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Employment Law, FLSA, Wage and Hour Disputes
  Comments: Comments Off on Pennsylvania District Court Rules Employer Could Not Credit Purported Premiums Included in Its Lump Sums Towards Overtime Compensation as Required by the FLSA and DOL Rules.
  Other posts by

Superior Court of Pennsylvania Upholds Employer’s Non-Compete Agreement That was Incidental to Employment and Reasonable in Time and Scope

By ,

SPG

In Tyco Fire Products, L.P. v. Fuchs, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that Tyco Fire Products, L.P.’s (“Tyco”) non-compete agreement was enforceable against its former employee (“Fuchs”). 2017, WL 5509889 (Pa. Super. 2017). Tyco designs, manufactures, and distributes fire protection products such as chemical water and other fire preventative measures.  Fuchs worked as a senior sales manager for Tyco for approximately ten years. During his time at Tyco, Fuchs signed a Confidentially Agreement and a Non-Competition Agreement (the non-compete agreement). This non-compete agreement stated that Fuchs may not “employ, engage, or enter into employment” with any competing business in the Northeast (including 11 states) for a period of 12 months.  After his resignation in 2016, Fuchs began work at Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc. which engages in the same type of business as Tyco. While employed at Reliable, Fuchs contacted former Tyco customers and engaged in business inside of the restricted zone of the non-compete.

When analyzing a non-compete agreement, the court will determine if the agreement is “incident to an employment relationship between the parties; the restrictions imposed by the covenant are reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer; and the restrictions imposed are reasonably limited in duration and geographic extent.”  Fuchs argued that Tyco’s non-compete agreement was unreasonably broad in both duration and geographic location.

The Court rejected Fuchs’ argument and found that the Tyco Agreement was enforceable under the required analysis. The Court ruled that the agreement was incidental to an employment relationship because of his actual employment as a sales manager for Tyco. Secondly, the Court ruled that Tyco’s agreement was reasonably necessary to protect Tyco’s legitimate business interests. In ruling on this issue, the Court looked to the fact that Reliable was in the same business as Tyco and Fuchs’ contact with the Tyco customers during his time at Reliable clearly show that there was a need to protect legitimate business interests. Lastly, and most importantly, the Court found that the 12-month (1 year) limitation was well within the reasonable limitations period and the 11-state geographic restriction was reasonable because Fuchs’ had conducted business in all restricted states during his time at Tyco. Thus, the Court ruled in favor of Tyco and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Philadelphia non-compete lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. protect employees’ right to work. For assistance in any type of employment law matter, call 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation in our Philadelphia office, where we represent clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or contact us online.