 Winebrake Law Firm Obtains Important Victory in Pennsylvania Overtime Lawsuit on Behalf of Scranton Prison Guards
June 1st, 2008 On May 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an important decision reaffirming the right of unionized prison guards employed in Scranton, Pennsylvania to pursue their Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim notwithstanding the existence of a collective bargaining agreement between their union and their employer.  In Gallagher, et al. v. Lackawanna County, 3:07-cv-00912-TIV, a group of Lackawanna County (PA) sergeants and corrections officers filed a federal court lawsuit asserting that, under the FLSA, they were entitled to full compensation, including overtime pay, for time spent attending daily pre-shift meetings and picking up radio batteries. The county sought dismissal of the lawsuit, alleging that the existence of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between the county and the prison prohibitted the plaintiffs from pursuing their FLSA lawsuit in federal court. Tags: collective action, collective bargaining agreement, FLSA, notice, pre-shift meetings, union contract ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal District Courts Continue to Certify Donning and Doffing Classes May 25th, 2008 On May 5, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin conditionally certified a class of hourly production employee’s FLSA claims under Section 216(b) and its state law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37678 (W.D.Wis. May 5, 2008). In this case, the plaintiffs sought to represent a class defined as “[a]ll current and former hourly employees employed at Kraft Foods Global, Inc’s Oscar Mayer Foods Division Madison, Wisconsin plant since May 30, 2004 who were not paid regular or overtime pay for time spent donning and doffing personal protective equipment and walking to and from their work stations.” Id. at *25. The protective equipment at issue included footwear (shoe rubbers, rubber boots or work boots), hair nets, beard nets (if applicable), protective headgear (hard hat or bump cap), polyester frocks, and ear plugs or ear muffs. See id. at *5. Maintenance personnel in this class were also required to wear a cotton shirt and some employees had to wear safety glasses. Id. As part of her opinion, District Judge Barbara Crabb noted that “[t]his is an easy case for class certification: plaintiffs are challenging defendant’s policy of refusing to pay hourly employees for certain activities; the class is limited to those employees who engage in those activities. It makes sense to decide the lawfulness of that policy with respect to all employees in one case.” Id. at *3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- District Courts Interpreting the Portal-to-Portal Act are Consistently Holding that Sanitary and Protective Gear Worn by Beef and Poultry Workers is “Intergral and Indispensable” to their Jobs and, Therefore, Compensable May 18th, 2008 Today’s blog entry should assist workers’ rights lawyers who are trying to fend off Corporate America’s argument that activities associated with “donning and doffing” sanitary and protective gear worn by beef and poultry workers are non-compensable “preliminary or postliminary” activities under the Portal-to-Portal Act. As discussed below, at least three district courts already have rejected this argument in 2008 alone. The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires that covered workers receive at least a minimum wage for all time “employed,” 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1), and that they receive overtime compensation “at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed,” id. at § 207(a)(1). As such, the FLSA reflects “a Congressional intention to guarantee either regular or overtime compensation for all actual work or employment.” Tennessee Coal, Iron & Railroad Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944). The FLSA defines the term “employ” as “includ[ing] to suffer or permit to work.” Id. at §203(g). Thus, a worker is entitled to the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime protections for periods in which he “suffer[ed] or [was] permit[ted] to work.” Id. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLSA “Opt-Ins” Joint the Entire Action: A Few Handy Cases May 8th, 2008 I finally have gotten around to researching the somewhat ellusive issue of whether individuals who join (or “opt-in”) to an FLSA collective action pursuant to Section 16(b) of the FLSA become parties to the entire lawsuit, including any state wage claims asserted in the original complaint.  Here are three published opinions in which courts conclude that FLSA opt-ins join the entire action: Prickett v. Dekalb Cty., 349 F.3d 1294, 1297 (11th Cir. 2003) (individuals who opt-in to FLSA collective action join “the action as a whole”);  Jackson v. City of San Antonio, 220 F.R.D. 55, 60 n.40 (W.D. Tex. 2003) (“an opt-in plaintiff to the federal [FLSA] claim, opts in to the action as a whole, including both the federal and state claims”); Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 F.R.D. 81, 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Section 216(b) gives [FLSA opt-ins] the same status as parties and, as parties, they should have the same rights as the named Plaintiffs to have their related claims adjudicated in the same forum.”). I hope these cites will help overtime lawyers fend off the company’s argument that FLSA opt-ins only “join” the FLSA claims. Tags: FLSA; collective action; state wage claims ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contrary to Popular Belief, the FLSA Usually Protects the Overtime Rights of Unionized Workers May 1st, 2008 Pennsylvania employment lawyers and labor lawyers often ask me about the extent to which unionized workers are protected by the FLSA. The short answer is that the FLSA covers unionized workers so long as the overtime dispute is grounded in the FLSA rather than the collective bargaining agreement. The following text is adopted from a legal brief I recently filed in the United States District Court in Scranton, Pennsylvania. In that case, I represent a group of unionized prison guards who allege that their employer, Lackawanna County, has violated the FLSA by failing to pay them for time spent attending mandatory, pre-shift meetings. I hope this excerpt will help Pennsylvania employment lawyers and Pennsylvania overtime attorneys in their quest to protect the overtime rights of all workers, including those in unions. In Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 U.S. 728 (1981), unionized truck drivers brought a federal court lawsuit alleging that their employer violated the FLSA by failing to pay them for time spent “conduct[ing] a safety inspection of their trucks before commencing any trip†and for time spent “transport[ing] any truck failing such inspection to [the company’s] on-premesis repair facility.†Id. at 730. The employer asserted that a contractual grievance process prohibited thedrivers from pursuing the FLSA claims in federal court. The Supreme Court disagreed. Tags: Barrentine, collective bargaining agreement, FLSA, overtime, union ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal District Court in Philadelphia Allows Overtime Claims by Loan Officers to Proceed to Trial as Collective Action April 16th, 2008 On April 4, 2008, a federal district judge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania issued an important opinion in Chabrier v. Wilmington Financial, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27761 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2008). Chabrier is typical of many FLSA lawsuits that have been filed on behalf of loan officers in recent years. In these lawsuits, the loan officers — who usually are paid on a commission basis – allege that they are entitled to overtime pay, while the mortgage or financial company asserts that the loan officers are exempt from FLSA coverage under either the administrative exemption or the outside salesperson exemption.  In Chabrier, the action was “conditionally certified” as an FLSA collective action and, after notice forms were sent to prospective class members, number loan officers joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. Discovery ensued and, at the close of discovery, the company sought to “decertify” the collective action, citing to purported diffences in the individual loan officers’ employment circumstances. The district court disagreed, observing that all of the class members were paid under the same compensation package, shared the same job title, job duties, and job descriptions, and were supervised by the same managers. The court reaffirmed the well-accepted principle that the FLSA does not require workers seeking overtime on a collective casis to share identical circumstances. The court observed: “A showing that there are elements of plaintiffs’ claims that differ, or that a small number of current plaintiffs are excluded, cannot override the similarities present in most plaintiffs’ claims and circumstances.”    Tags: collective action, FLSA, loan officers, mortgage companies, overtime, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Florida District Court Allows Off-Site Work Case to Proceed to Trial April 11th, 2008 On April 9, 2008, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied summary judgment in Saphos v. Gross Pointe Development Company, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29182 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2008). In this case, the employee complained that her company failed to pay her overtime for hours spent attending evening events outside of her regular work hours. The employee alleged that she was required to attend these events at the direction of her supervisor. The company countered that the events were “public and charitable” events that the employee attended voluntarily. The federal court rejected the company’s argument. Discussing the DOL’s regulation pertaining to the compensability of “public and charitable” events (29 C.F.R. 785.44), the court explained that there are “three scenarios” in which employees must be paid for time the spend at off-site events: (1) where attendance is requested by the employer; (2) where the event is subject to the employer’s discretion or control; or (3) where the employee is normally required to be on the premesis of the event. Since the jury could find one of these scenarios to be satisfied, summary judgment was denied. The employee will get her day in court. Tags: off-site work, overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Winebrake Law Firm Obtains federal court Approval for Over $2.4 Million in settlements for meat workers in FLSA “Donning and Doffing†Law-suits April 8th, 2008 On May 29, 2007, and July 26, 2007, federal judges in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania approved settlements totaling over $2.4 million in FLSA “donning and doffing†lawsuits brought on behalf of current and former meat processing workers. In each case, Attorney Pete Winebrake of The Winebrake Law Firm was appointed by the federal judge to serve as lead plaintiffs’ counsel. FLSA “donning and doffing†lawsuits have become increasingly prevalent in federal courthouses throughout the United States. In these types of cases, workers generally contend that they are entitled to compensation for time spent performing various pre-shift and post-shift activities associated with the wearing and maintenance of sanitary/safety gear required by their jobs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLSA “White Collar†Misclassification Lawsuits Continue to be Fertile Ground For Litigation April 8th, 2008 Effective August 2004, the Department of Labor (“DOLâ€) implemented new regulations defining the FLSA’s executive, administrative, and professional exemptions became effective in August 2004. See 29 C.F.R. §§541.0, et seq. Under these “white collar†exemptions, companies can avoid paying overtime to workers who receive a weekly salary of over $455 and perform executive, administrative, and professional. The regulations generally sought to expand the scope of the exemptions, leaving fewer workers with FLSA overtime benefits. Fortunately, the revised regulations have not deterred trial lawyers from protecting the wage and hour rights of salaried workers who are managerial in job title only. For example, The Winebrake Law Firm recently obtained federal court settlements for various salaried employees who alleged that they were misclassified as exempt under the white collar exemptions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMINDER:Federal Minimum Wage Increase Becomes Effective July 24, 2007 April 8th, 2008 Effective July 24, 2007, the federal minimum wage increased from $5.15/hr. to $5.85/hr. This increase, which was opposed by the usual cast of special interest groups opposed to fair wages and workplace justice, was passed by the Democratic Congress in May 2007. Since this is the first federal minimum wage increase in almost ten years, it is difficult to predict whether employers will promptly comply with the law. If you represent workers and their families, make sure they are receiving the new minimum wage of $5.85/hr. |
Location
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
Twining Office Center Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, Pennsylvania 19025 Phone: 215.884.2491 Fax: 215.884.2492 View Map ____________________________
Contact Us
|
