Category: FLSA

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

By ,

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

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

By ,

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

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

By ,

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 ,

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 ,

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 ,

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

Proposed Changes to the Minimum Required Salary for Pennsylvania White-Collar Overtime Exemptions

By ,

On June 23, 2018, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (“DLI”) proposed major rule changes to the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). The PWMA is the state version of the Fair Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”), which creates minimum wage and overtime rules for employers.

The most significant proposed change involves the minimum salary level pertaining to the white-collar exemption. For an employer to avoid paying overtime to salaried employees, the employee must meet both the “Duties Test” and the minimum salary level. As it currently stands, the FLSA requires salary employees under the white-collar exemption to be paid at least $455 per week or $23,660 annually. The proposed regulation to the PMWA would change this minimum salary level to: $610 per week or $31,720 annually effective on the date the final rule is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin; $766 per week or $39,832 annually effective one year after the publication of the final rule; and $921 per week or $47,892 annually effective one year later.

In addition to the proposed changes to the minimum required salary, the DLI also proposed changes to the “Duties Test”, which explains what job duties an employee must perform to qualify under the white-collar exemptions. However, the proposed rule changes do not mirror the FLSA regulations when it comes to the test and will presumedly create confusion for employers trying to comply with both the FLSA and PMWA. For example, certain exemptions such as the computer professional or highly compensated employee exemptions are recognized under the FLSA but not under the proposed change to the PMWA.

The DLI states within the proposal that these changes are needed to more closely align with federal regulations, and because the minimum salary levels in Pennsylvania have not been updated in 40 years and fail to keep pace with economic growth.

Philadelphia overtime dispute lawyers of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green are highly skilled business and employment litigators with experience representing employees with overtime claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Call 215-574-0600 today or submit an online contact form to arrange a consultation.  Our office is located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and we represent clients throughout the Philadelphia and South Jersey regions.

  Category: FLSA, Wage and Hour Disputes
  Comments: Comments Off on Proposed Changes to the Minimum Required Salary for Pennsylvania White-Collar Overtime Exemptions
  Other posts by

Eastern District Court Rules that Uber Drivers are Not Employees under the FLSA

By ,

On April 11, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Drivers working for Uber Technologies Inc.’s car service failed to show that they are employees. Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61230, 2018 WL 1744467 (E.D. Pa., April 11, 2018). Plaintiffs filed claims against Uber Technologies Inc. (“Uber”) for violations of the federal and state minimum wage and overtime requirements. They claimed that Uber violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL). The Court held that the Plaintiffs did not qualify as “employees” under either the state or federal statutes and granted Uber’s motion for summary judgment.

The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not bring sufficient evidence to support their burden of showing that they were “employees” as required by the FLSA. To determine whether Plaintiffs were employees, the Court assessed the facts under the Donovan factors which are: “(1) the degree of the alleged employer’s right to control the manner in which the work is to be performed; (2) the alleged employee’s opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his managerial skill; (3) the alleged employee’s investment in equipment or materials required for his task, or his employment of helpers; (4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; (5) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and (6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the alleged employer’s business.” The Court’s analysis was based on the totality of the circumstances, and no one factor was dispositive in the classification of a worker as an employee or an independent contractor.

The Court found that the only factors weighing in Plaintiffs favor were the fourth “special skills” factor and the sixth “integral part factor.” However, considering the elements in totality, the Donovan factors strongly favored Plaintiffs classification as independent contractors rather than employees given their ability to create their own schedules, choose where they want to work, and that they had the freedom to attend to personal matters while not in service. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were unable to meet their necessary burden, and the Court ruled in favor of Uber in granting its Motion for Summary Judgment.

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: FLSA
  Comments: Comments Off on Eastern District Court Rules that Uber Drivers are Not Employees under the FLSA
  Other posts by

Pennsylvania District Court Holds PMWA and FLSA Claims Analyzed Under the Same Basic Framework

By ,

In Rummel v. Highmark, Inc., 2013 WL 6055082 (W.D. Pa.), Plaintiff, an employee at Defendant Highmark, Inc., alleged that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Under both the PMWA and the FLSA, an employer is required to pay overtime to employees for hours worked over forty in a workweek. To state a claim under the FLSA, a plaintiff must allege that: “(1) the defendant was “engaged in commerce” as that phrase is defined by the FLSA; (2) the plaintiff was an ‘employee’ as defined by the FLSA; and (3) the plaintiff worked more than forty hours in a week but was not paid overtime compensation for the hours worked in excess of forty.”

The Court held that “because the PMWA parallels the FLSA in requiring employers to compensate employees for overtime hours worked and has identical standards of liability as the FLSA in overtime violation claims,” courts will analyze PMWA claims and FLSA claims under the same basic framework.

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: FLSA
  Comments: Comments Off on Pennsylvania District Court Holds PMWA and FLSA Claims Analyzed Under the Same Basic Framework
  Other posts by

The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Holds Two-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable to Plaintiff’s FLSA Claim for Unpaid Overtime

By ,

Plaintiff’s claims stemmed from unpaid overtime wages she allegedly was entitled to during her employment at Troy Construction (Troy) in 2013. Stone v. Troy Constr., LLC, No. 3:14cv306 2018 U.S. LEXIS 50232 (M.D. Pa. 2018). The critical question was whether a two-year or three-year statute of limitation would apply. The statute of limitations provides a set amount of time for the injured party to commence an action to recover damages for the alleged injury. The Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) provides the plaintiff with two possible statute of limitations. The usual statute limitations for FLSA claims is two-years, but if the plaintiff sufficiently pleads a willful violation of the FLSA, the statute of limitation can be extended to three years. A plaintiff can sufficiently plead a willful violation if they provide facts and evidence to allow a factfinder to reasonably conclude that the employer “knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute.” The willful violation standard is not an easy standard to meet. Employers have found not to be acting willfully when they act reasonably in determining its legal obligation. For example, a court has found that an employer did not willfully violate the FLSA when, based on an incorrect interpretation of the FLSA, it instructed its employees not to fill out time cards for more than 40 hours.

In this matter, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s complaint did not offer facts to support her claim that Troy willfully violated the FLSA. Without sufficient facts to support her willful allegation, the two-year stature of limitations applied to Plaintiff’s claim. As the last cause of action that could give rise to a FLSA violation occurred outside of the two-year limitations period, the plaintiff’s FLSA claim was dismissed.

If you suspect that you have been wrongfully denied overtime pay, you may have a valid claim. Schedule a consultation with a Philadelphia overtime dispute lawyer at the Law Office of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. by calling 215-574-0600 to discuss your legal options or contact us online today.

  Category: Business Law, FLSA
  Comments: Comments Off on The District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Holds Two-Year Statute of Limitations Applicable to Plaintiff’s FLSA Claim for Unpaid Overtime
  Other posts by