Category: Wage and Hour Disputes

Growing Number of Cities and States to Ban Salary History Inquiries

By ,

Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers protect employees’ rights to fair pay.Cities and states across the country are passing legislation that prohibit employers from conducting inquiries into prospective employees’ salary histories. The main purpose of salary history bans are to close the wage gap that continues to exist for women and minorities. By prohibiting employers from accessing this information, these employees are better able to negotiate a fair salary.

While historically liberal states have a history of supporting legislation that supports workers’ rights, many conservative states have also started to subscribe to the idea of banning salary inquiries. For example, Maine lawmakers recently passed legislation that would prohibit employers from asking job candidates for information about salary history. The Governor of North Carolina also signed a similar order that would prevent state agencies from using an applicant’s pay history to negotiate a salary offer.

Addressing Pay Gaps

Several states are responding to the current political environment and the lack of federal rules over pay disparities by acting and passing legislation that bans pay history inquiries. In March, the House passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would prohibit employers from paying different salaries to similarly qualified individuals unless warranted. It is not yet known whether the bill will pass in the Senate. While these policies may not have an overnight impact on local employers, it should be a wake-up call that employers can expect broader restrictions down the road. Pay fairness has become more of a hot topic of discussion recently. West Virginia, Montana, New Jersey, Washington, and New Hampshire have considered pay history bans during recent legislative sessions.

The following states have banned employers from asking questions about pay history:

  • California
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Hawaii
  • Massachusetts
  • Oregon
  • Vermont
  • Puerto Rico

The following states have rules for state agency hiring practices:

  • Illinois
  • Michigan
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect Employees’ Rights to Fair Pay

If an employer asks for your salary history during an interview, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We will protect your legal rights and ensure that you are fairly compensated for the work you do based on your experience and qualifications, not on your salary history. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are in Philadelphia, where we serve clients across southeastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and New Jersey.

Comcast Contractor Ordered to Pay $7.5 Million in Unpaid Overtime

By ,

Philadelphia overtime claims lawyers secure overtime pay for workers. O.C. Communications is a national fulfillment contractor for low-voltage installations, which prides itself as having some of the best, most highly trained employees. However, according to a recent lawsuit, some of the company’s employees were not paid for the overtime hours they worked. In addition, the company did not allow meal breaks and did not reimburse employees for money spent on tools and other equipment that was used for work.

Employee Accusations

One O.C. Communications employee said that the company scheduled him to make 32 job stops in one day, where normally he was only assigned eight stops. In addition, his supervisor ordered him to work through his meals, which usually meant eating while driving, and he was expected to remain available via his cell phone at all times, so that he could immediately respond to work-related calls.

Another worker shared that he was not reimbursed for equipment he purchased for his job, including a wireless drill, drill bits, pliers, a staple gun, as well as boots and pants.

Failure to Pay Workers for Overtime Hours

O.C. Communications and Comcast Corp were both named in the federal class-action lawsuit.

In early March, both companies agreed to settle the lawsuit. As a result, the $7.5 million would be split among the roughly 4,500 techs involved in the lawsuit.

According to the legal team representing the plaintiffs, the workers had not been paid for 2.5 hours of off-the-clock work per day, and that the companies had violated state and federal laws, including a failure to compensate tech workers for piecework and overtime wages.

The lawsuit states that Comcast controlled the majority of O.C. Communications’ revenue stream. In addition, the company continuously monitored the work activities and work progress of all technicians throughout the day, using their mobile devices.

The suit further claimed that based on the call logs between O.C. Communications and Comcast, it appeared that the technicians were “fully integrated into the Comcast business.”

Settlement Agreement Reached

The plaintiffs considered the possibility that O.C. Communications would not be able to pay a significant amount of the damages, and that Comcast may not be held liable as a joint employer. However, after extensive litigation and the production of 1.5 million documents, the two companies agreed to settle the case.

Philadelphia Overtime Claims Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Secure Overtime Pay for Workers

If you have not been paid for the overtime hours you worked, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia overtime claims lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. at your earliest convenience. Our experienced legal team will work tirelessly to ensure that your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum financial compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients in Pennsylvania, South Jersey, and across New Jersey.

Department of Labor Announces Much Anticipated Proposal on Overtime Pay

By ,

In early March, the Department of Labor (DOL) released a proposal that would make it possible for more workers to collect overtime pay. According to the proposal, employees who earn an annual salary of $35,000 would be able to collect time-and-a-half for the number of hours they worked beyond the 40-hour work week.

Currently, employees who make $24,000 per year are eligible for overtime, so this proposal would expand the number of employees who could collect overtime pay.

Threshold Adjustments

This latest proposal is an increase from the current threshold, which entitles employees who make an annual salary of $24,000 to collect overtime. However, it is not as high as the proposal made by the Obama administration, which would have allowed workers making $47,000 per year to collect overtime once they surpassed 40 hours in a week.

The DOL’s latest proposal would allow more workers to collect time-and-a-half for their overtime work. The proposal made by the Obama administration also included periodic increases of the salary threshold, which this latest proposal does not have. Rather, the DOL is looking for comments from the public about whether they should update the overtime requirements every four years.

The Obama administration threshold was blocked by a judge in 2017 and is still subject to an ongoing appeals process. The judge had made this decision saying that the DOL was focused too heavily on the amount of money workers make, rather than their jobs.

Potential Legal Challenges

The last time the salary threshold was increased was in 2004. While the DOL hopes to avoid litigation by using the same economic methodology that was used by the George W. Bush administration in 2004, this latest proposal is likely to face legal challenges. Businesses will likely voice their concerns over the impact the proposal will have on their ability to meet rising payroll costs. Worker advocates will argue that the proposal falls short when it comes to expanding overtime pay.

Other legal issues may arise in response to the DOL’s decision against varying the salary threshold based on cost of living differences in different regions across the country. Large businesses and worker groups, in particular, oppose this decision.

Other critics of the proposal say that fewer employees are eligible for time-and-a-half pay due to the delay in modifying the requirements for overtime pay. According to an Economic Policy Institute Senior Economist, millions of workers who should have received overtime protections under the 2016 rule will not be covered by this new rule.

In addition, many believe that the standards are outdated and do not reflect the realities of the 2019 workplace. However, a DOL official said that the general overtime methodology has been proven to work, and the DOL is confident that it is appropriate for the purpose of updating the salary threshold.

Philadelphia Wage and Hour Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Secure Overtime Pay for Eligible Workers

If you have been denied overtime wages, the Philadelphia wage and hour lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. will work to secure the full compensation you deserve. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. We will continue to fight for you until we have your complete satisfaction. Our offices are conveniently located in Philadelphia, where we serve clients throughout South Jersey, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Third Circuit Court Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment in PMWA Statutory Construction Case

By ,

In Livi v. Hyatt Hotels Corp., No. 17-3646, 2018 WL 4944823 (3d Cir. 2018) the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Hyatt Hotels in a Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (“WPCL”) action. Plaintiff, a banquet server for Hyatt, filed a class action complaint on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals alleging that she worked more than 40 hours but was not paid overtime and that she was entitled to contractual service charge which Hyatt retained.

Under Pennsylvania law, service establishments (including hotels) are not required to pay overtime to employees working more than 40 hours per week if they are exempt from the overtime requirement under 34 Pa. Code § 231.43(f). An employer may be exempt if the “regular rate of pay of the employee is in excess of 1 ½ times the minimum hourly rate applicable” or “more than half of the employee’s compensation for a representative period, not less than 1 month, represents commissions on goods or services.” Plaintiff fell within both exemptions because the Court found her regular rate of pay at Hyatt was more than 1 ½ times the minimum wage and the service charges Hyatt paid her comprised more than half her compensation.

However, Plaintiff argued that Hyatt was not exempt from the overtime requirement because the service charges do not “represent commissions on goods or services” under the Pa. Code. The Court reasoned that although the relevant Pennsylvania statutes do not define “commission” and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had no guidance on the issue, it was appropriate for the Court to look to Pennsylvania’s intermediate appellate court for assistance. The Court then explained that Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court instructed that “when the PMWA substantially parallels the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Pennsylvania courts look to federal courts’ interpretation of the parallel FLSA provision for guidance. Looking then to the FLSA’s overtime exemption, the Court agreed with the District Court that banquet service charges represent commissions. Therefore, the District Court appropriately awarded summary judgment to Hyatt.

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.

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

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