Woodley & McGillivary Verdicts & Settlements
- $80 million settlement for overtime pay for federal criminal investigators
- A court settlement in excess of $51 million in back overtime pay,...
- $25 million settlement for overtime pay for shipyard workers
- A federal jury verdict of $2.3 million against the City of North...
- $14.4 million settlement for federal agents after successful trial...
- $15 million settlement for hazardous duty pay for federal employees
- $15 million Court judgment and settlement against the City of Los...
- Settlement for overtime pay for auto mechanics and hourly clerks at...
- Non-Competitive accretion of duty promotions ruled invalid for federal...
- Jury Verdict plus reinstatement for fired Colorado fired fighter for...
- Jury verdict against City of Springdale, AK for violating Fire Fighter's...
- Jury verdict against Volusia County, FL for violating Fire Fighter's...
- Jury verdict against City of Maryville, TN for interfering with Union's...
- $2,300,000 settlement for technicians denied overtime pay while working...
- $5,000,000 overtime backpay settlement for workers misclassified as...
- Won and/or settled overtime back wage claims in excess of $25 million...
- Settlement for workers at Tyson's meat-processing plant in Goodlettsville,...
- Jury Verdict plus reinstatement for Missouri fire fighter for violation...
Common Violations
| COMMON WAGE AND HOUR ISSUES Set forth below is an outline discussing the most frequent type of wage and hour violations that are occurring today. Significantly, many of these violations occur in unionized workplaces and can be remedied in court. This paper is designed to help you recognize whether these violations are occurring at your workplace. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. |
back to top |
| LEADING AREAS The list set forth below is not all inclusive, but are some of the areas in which employers often violate the overtime laws: |
back to top |
| Off-the-Clock - Alvarez v. IBP There are two ways an employer can violate this area of the law.
| |
back to top |
| Misclassification Exemption Cases Employee is misclassified as FLSA exempt - meaning the employee is not paid overtime - under administrative, executive, or professional exemptions. | |
back to top |
| Regular Rate Failure to include all forms of premium pay received when calculating the employee's regular rate of pay, which is the rate used to pay overtime. | |
back to top |
| Timely Payment Failure to pay overtime in the next regular pay period after which it is worked | |
back to top |
| Compensatory Time Failure to properly follow the rules pertaining to FLSA compensatory time for employees working in the public sector. In particular, the denial of requests to use compensatory time and the improper conversion or cashing out of compensatory time. Private sector employees cannot be paid compensatory time for hours worked over 40 hours; they must be paid in cash. | |
back to top |
| DETAILED ANALYSIS In each of the leading areas, a precedent has been set by a previous case, which allows current cases under similar conditions to be pursued successfully. Below is a detailed analysis of the precedent that has been set for the leading areas in which employers often violate overtime laws. |
back to top |
| Off-the-Clock - Alvarez v. IBP The
Supreme Court's recent decision in Alvarez
v. IBP has likely opened the door to off-the-clock claims regarding
pre-shift and post-shift claims. In Alvarez, the Court ruled that once an
employee picks up a piece of equipment or clothing at the worksite or is
compelled to perform some other work activity such as reviewing supervisors'
memos, the clock for compensable work time begins. With regard to equipment or clothing, the
work clock ends only when the equipment or clothing is returned. Meal Breaks There
are essentially two types of meal period cases:
(1) Individuals who work through the meal period by eating at the
worksite and (2) individuals who receive only an abbreviated meal period. The Second Circuit's decision in Reich v.
Pre-shift / Post-shift
| |
back to top |
| Misclassification Exemption Cases These are cases in which employers simply fail to pay employees any
overtime or overtime at a reduced rate because the employer claims that the
employees are exempt from the FLSA. The main exemptions employers attempt to use to avoid overtime pay are the administrative, professional, and executive exemptions. The professional exemption is straightforward and the
types of jobs that one would instinctively think of as professional (RNs,
lawyers, vets, certified teachers, etc.) is pretty consistent with the law. However, the exemption only applies to persons who are qualified or certified to perform the professional and are actually performing the work of the profession as their primary job duty. The executive exemption is used to exempt managers. To be exempt, an employee must make
recommendations which are given "substantial weight" with respect to changes in
an employee's employment status and the executive must have management as his
or her primary job duty. The administrative exemption is the most mis-used by the employer. An exempt administrator must be involved in the internal workings of the employer as opposed to doing the day to day production work, and the employee must make decisions with respect to matters of significance to the company. For example, a secretary would meet the test for being involved in the company's internal operations, but would nonetheless be non-exempt because he or she would not make any decisions of significance for the company. These are some of the typical types of misclassification:
| |
back to top |
| Regular Rate The FLSA requires that all non-discretionary pay be included in the rate at which overtime is paid unless there is a specific statutory exception for it. The most common types of pay that are wrongly excluded from the calculation of the regular rate of pay are longevity pay, shift differentials, hazardous duty pay, annual bonuses, and employee performance or contest awards. Pensions, holiday pay, paid leave, stock options and similar payments may be excluded from the regular rate. Longevity or seniority pay that is paid once at the end of the year and then not included in the employees' overtime pay is the most common type of violation, though shift differentials are often omitted as well. Merely because the payment is made only once a year is not a defense to failure to include it in the overtime rate. The employer must pro-rate the pay over the course of the year. In some states, failure to pay wages on a timely basis results in significant penalties. | |
back to top |
| Timely Payment The FLSA requires that overtime be paid in the
next pay period after it is worked for which the employee receives a
paycheck. The damages for the failure to
pay timely are either liquidated damages equal to the amount of the late
payment or interest. In Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 151537 (9thCir.
1993), the court ruled that Section 211 (c) of the FLSA requires employers to
maintain accurate records. If it can be
shown that the employer has failed to meet this burden, the employees'
estimates as to hours worked are presumptively valid. | |
back to top |
| Compensatory Time - Public Sector Under Section 7(o) of the FLSA, public employers
may, with the agreement of the employee or their representative, pay comp time
instead of cash for overtime work.
However, there are specific rules that must be followed in awarding comp
time, granting requests to use comp time and cashing it out. To pay comp time, the employer must have an
agreement with the employee or their representative to do so before the
employee performs overtime work. There
are limits on the number of comp hours that can be accrued: 240 hours for
regular employees and 480 hours for public safety employees. If an employee requests use of comp time, the
request must be granted unless it unduly disrupts the operations of the
department. The Sixth Circuit recently
held in Beck v. City of Cleveland, 390
F.3d 912 (6th Cir. 2004), that it does not disrupt the operations of
a department to call in another employee to work overtime. There is also a district court decision -- Debraska v. City of Milwaukee -- that
reached the same holding. Thus, as long
as there is an employee willing to work to replace the employee using comp
time, the comp time request must be granted within a reasonable date of the
request. Requests are improperly denied Many public employers routinely deny requests to use comp time on the basis that they will have to call an employee back to work overtime to replace the employee who wants to use comp time. They do so under the mistaken belief that calling another employee to work overtime constitutes an "undue disruption" of the agency's work. As the Beck decision makes clear, however, this is legally invalid. and/or Comp time is not cashed out properly or is converted to some other form of leave Public employers often fail to cash out the employees' comp time when employees retire, or they cash it out at the wrong rate. All shift differentials, longevity pay, etc. must be factored into the rate at which comp time is cashed out. In some jurisdictions, comp time is converted to some other form of leave if it is not used within a certain period of time. For example, in one case we handled it was converted to sick leave after one year. Then, any unused sick leave was cashed out at 50% of its value when an employee left employment. This violates the FLSA. | |
back to top |



