 THE WAGE AND OVERTIME LAWS APPLY TO FORMER EMPLOYEES
January 25th, 2011 Clients and referring counsel often ask whether workers can bring a wage or overtime lawsuit against a former employer and, if so, how far back their damages can extend. Here’s what you need to know: Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and every similar state law, employees can sue former employers for wage and overtime violations. In fact, well over 50% of our firm’s clients no longer work for the defendant company. The statute of limitations period for an FLSA claim is either two years or, in the event of a “willful violation,” three years. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). However, under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), which generally offers the same wage and overtime protections as the FLSA, the statute of limitations period always is three years. Thus, in Pennsylvania, a worker who files suit on September 1, 2009 can recover damages going back to September 1, 2006. That’s why it’s so important for your clients to commence their wage and overtime action as promptly as possible. This is true even if their worker’s compensation claim is pending. In fact, resolution of the wage and overtime suit might even enhance your client’s worker’s compensation award by elevating her weekly earnings figure. Tags: Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, former employees, former employer, overtime lawsuit, overtime violations, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, PMWA, wage and overtime action ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNDERSTAND THE TRAVEL TIME RIGHTS OF LANDSCAPERS, LABORERS, AND CONTRACTORS January 25th, 2011 The full panoply of wage and overtime rip-offs in the landscaping and construction industries are too vast to be covered by this mere Newsletter. Notwithstanding, when you speak with your clients in the landscaping and construction industries, you should be on the lookout for the Company’s failure to pay for travel between the company headquarters and the work location. Many landscaping and contracting companies require the workers to report to headquarters at the beginning of the workday. There, the workers gather equipment and materials needed for the day’s project, load the company vehicle, and travel to the worksite. Then, at the end of the day, the workers must return to headquarters, unload the vehicle, and perform other end-of-shift duties. The illegality arises when the Company pays the workers only for the time spent on-site at the work location. Under such circumstances, workers are cheated out of many hours of compensable work. Indeed, we have represented clients who have been owed thousands of dollars for of unpaid travel time at the beginning and end of the workday. The Department of Labor has enacted a regulation that specifically addresses travel during the workday. Here’s what it says: Time spent by an employee in travel as part of his principal activity, such as travel from job site to job site during the workday, must be counted as hours worked. Where an employee is required to report at a meeting place to receive instructions or to perform other work there, or to pick up and to carry tools, the travel from the designated place to the work place is part of the day’s work, and must be counted as hours worked regardless of contract, custom, or practice. If an employee normally finishes his work on the premises at 5 p.m. and is sent to another job which he finishes at 8 p.m. and is required to return to his employer’s premises arriving at 9 p.m., all of the time is working time. However, if the employee goes home instead of returning to his employer’s premises, the travel after 8 p.m. is home-to-work travel and is not hours worked. 29 C.F.R. §785.38 (emphasis supplied). In this economy, workers are increasingly required to drive to worksites located further and further away from company headquarters. These workers deserve to be paid for this work, which keeps them away from their families for many extra hours during the typical workweek. If you suspect your landscaping or construction clients have been denied travel time, don’t hesitate to refer them to our law firm for a free and confidential consultation. Tags: construction, contractors, landscapers, overtime compensation, post-shift compensation, pre-shift compensation, travel, travel time compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE OVERTIME RIGHTS OF PARATRANSIT DRIVERS AND OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DRIVERS. ARE YOUR CLIENTS BEING CHEATED? January 25th, 2011 Our firm has successfully handled claims involving the overtime pay rights of drivers employed by bus companies that provide transportation to disabled and elderly passengers. These bus companies often operate under contracts with local governments or local public transit agencies, and they employ thousands of drivers throughout Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Many of our friends in the workplace injury bar know how hard these drivers work and how often they get hurt while lifting and assisting passengers. But what about their overtime rights? For sure, many local bus companies pay their drivers the time-and-one-half overtime premium required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”), and similar state laws. Unfortunately, less-generous bus companies deny their drivers overtime pay by asserting that the drivers are covered by the Motor Carrier Act Exemption (“MCA Exemption”) to overtime coverage. The FLSA and similar state overtime laws contain an MCA Exemption that applies to “employee[s] with respect to whom the Secretary of Transportation has power to establish qualifications and maximum hours of service.” See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1); 43 P.S. § 333.105(b)(7). But the MCA Exemption is not as broad as some employers think. As the Department of Labor has explained, the MCA Exemption is strictly limited to employees who, among other things, “engage in activities of a character directly affecting the safety of operation of motor vehicles in the transportation on the public highways of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce within the meaning of the Motor Carrier Act.” 29 C.F.R. § 782.2(a) (emphasis supplied); accord Dole v. Solid Waste Services, Inc., 733 F. Supp. 895, 929 (E.D. Pa. 1989). In other words, for the MCA Exemption to apply, the drivers must be engaged in interstate commerce. Therein lies the problem for many private bus companies throughout Pennsylvania and elsewhere. In providing transportation services to disabled and elderly clients, the drivers almost never cross state lines. This is especially true when the bus company’s service area lies well within a state’s boundaries. But it also tends to hold true for bus companies that operate close to state borders. Simply put, the day-to-day routines of most people – including most elderly and disabled people – rarely take them over state lines. The case of Dauphin v. Chestnut Ridge Transportation, Inc., 544 F. Supp. 2d 266, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), is instructive. There, the federal judge carefully reviewed the pertinent legal authority and concluded that, for the MCA Exemption to cover a driver, the bus company must prove that the driver’s trips across state lines are “more than de minimis” or are “a ‘natural, integral and . . . inseparable part’ of” the driver’s job. Id. at 275. Here’s the bottom line: If you represent drivers who currently or formerly worked for a local bus company, you should ask them three relevant questions: (1) Did they ever work over 40 hours per week? (2) On such occasions, did they receive time-and-one-half overtime pay? (3) If they did not receive overtime pay, did they regularly drive over state lines? If you client neither received overtime nor regularly drove over state lines, we would be delighted to provide the client with a free and confidential consultation. Tags: bus drivers overtime, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, motor carrier exemption, Paratransit Drivers Overtime, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, PMWA, Regional Transportation Drivers Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLSA MYTHBUSTER: WORKERS USUALLY MUST BE PAID FOR “UNAUTHORIZED” OVERTIME January 25th, 2011 Each quarter, our FLSA Mythbuster (identity and whereabouts still unknown) visits Corporate America’s Land of Make-Believe to uncover common workplace rules that violate the FLSA. Today’s column emanates from Hazleton, Pennsylvania, where The Boss has instructed his low wage employees that working beyond the scheduled 40 hour workweek generally is not permitted and that no one will be paid for “unauthorized” overtime. Of course, The Boss almost never “authorizes” overtime, even though (i) the employees cannot possibly complete their assigned work within a 40 hour workweek and (ii) everyone, including The Boss and his middle managers, knows that the employees routinely work in excess of 40 hours. The Boss is violating the FLSA. Department of Labor regulations clearly require that: Work not requested but suffered or permitted is work time. For example, an employee may voluntarily continue to work at the end of the shift. He may be a pieceworker, he may desire to finish an assigned task or he may wish to correct errors, paste work tickets, prepare time reports or other records. The reason is immaterial. The employer knows or has reason to believe that he is continuing to work and the time is working time. 29 CFR § 785.11. Moreover, under DOL regulations, The Boss – not the employee – is responsible for ensuring that “unauthorized” work is not tolerated. In, particular: In all such cases it is the duty of the management to exercise its control and see that the work is not performed if it does not want it to be performed. It cannot sit back and accept the benefits without compensating for them. The mere promulgation of a rule against such work is not enough. Management has the power to enforce the rule and must make every effort to do so. 29 CFR § 785.113. Put differently – and as recognized by several federal courts – overtime pay is due whenever The Boss has either “actual or constructive knowledge” of the overtime work. See Barvinchak v. Indiana Regional Medical Center, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72805, * (W.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2007). Moreover, The Boss’s knowledge “is measured in accordance with his duty to inquire into the conditions prevailing in his business.” Reyna v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89690, *13 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2006) (quoting Reich v. Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir. 1994)). In sum, ignorance should not be bliss for greedy employers who implement “unauthorized overtime” rules in violation of the FLSA. Tags: 40 hour workweek, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, unauthorized overtime, unauthorized work ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENDORSES “BROAD DEFINITION” OF COMPENSABLE WORK UNDER THE FLSA. DECISION WILL BENEFIT THOUSANDS OF WORKERS IN PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE. January 25th, 2011 In September 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its much-anticipated decision in DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 500 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2007). The decision is a victory for workers within the Third Circuit – which includes Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey – because the Court rejected the overly-restrictive definition of compensable work advocated by big business and its high-powered friends, such as the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Chicken Council, and the American Meat Institute, all of whom filed amicus briefs opposing the workers’ position. The DeAsencio lawsuit was brought by a group of poultry workers who sought compensation under the FLSA for unpaid activities such as (i) gathering and donning smocks, gloves, hairnets, and other company-mandated gear at the beginning of the workday, (ii) washing themselves and certain gear at the beginning of the workday, (iii) traveling to their workstation at the beginning of the workday, and (iv) doffing and returning company-mandated gear at the end of the workday. The company asserted that such activities were not compensable because, among other reasons, the activities did not require substantial physical or mental “exertion.” On appeal, a unanimous Third Circuit Court rejected the notion that an activity’s compensability under the FLSA turns on the degree of “exertion” required by the activity. The Court explained that a “broad definition of work” applies when determining whether “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities are compensable. What matters, the Court explained, is whether the activities are “integral and indispensable” to the worker’s principal activities. Thus, because the wearing of sanitary and protective gear is mandatory due to the nature of poultry processing, the compensable workday begins when the poultry worker picks up his first item of gear, and the worker is entitled to be paid from that moment forward. Whether this first compensable act requires substantial mental or physical “exertion” is irrelevant to the worker’s right to be paid. If you know or represent workers who are required to perform pre-shift activities, you should be on the lookout for potential FLSA violations. The Winebrake Law Firm represents hundreds of workers in collective action lawsuits seeking compensation for time spent engaged in pre-shift activities. These lawsuits, which currently are pending in federal courts in Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas, seek full compensation for an array of pre-shift activities, including: gathering and donning company mandated equipment; traveling to the workstation; programming or “logging in” to computer systems; attending pre-shift meetings; and performing pre-shift exercises. Tags: Compensable Work, donning and doffing, donning and doffing compensation, FLSA, New Jersey overtime attorneys, overtime compensation, Pennsylvania overtime attorneys, poultry workers, pre-shift work ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PENNSYLVANIA MINIMUM WAGE ACT CONTINUES TO PROVIDE HOPE FOR UNDERPAID AND OVERWORKED HOME HEALTH AIDS January 25th, 2011 In the Summer 2007 edition of the Wage and Hour Quarterly, we reviewed the Supreme Court’s disappointing holding in Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007), that home health aids are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. On a more optimistic note, however, we observed that home health aids might be entitled to overtime pay under Pennsylvania’s more worker-friendly Minimum Wage Act. Recent filings in a pending Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court proceeding entitled Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry, Docket No. 477 M.D. 2007, reveal that the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry agrees with The Winebrake Law Firm’s view that the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) entitles home health aids to overtime pay. Also, in the absence of an exemption, the PMWA may entitle home health aids to be paid for time spent traveling between clients during the workday. Home health aids are among the most overworked and underpaid workers in Pennsylvania. They usually are employed by third-party home health agencies, and their jobs consist of visiting the homes of elderly or disabled clients to assist with daily living activities such as dressing, bathing, housekeeping, and cooking. Many home health aids work over 40 hours per week without receiving the time-and-one-half overtime premium, and they almost never are paid for the substantial time they spend traveling between clients during the workday. Tags: Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, home health agencies, Home Health Aids Overtime, Pennsylvania hospital employees, Pennsylvania hospital workers, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania overtime attorney ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLSA MYTHBUSTER: THE BOSS DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM SLOPPY OR INCOMPLETE RECORDKEEPING January 25th, 2011 In investigating wage and hour cases, The Winebrake Law Firm often consults with workers and referring counsel who believe that a wage and hour lawsuit will be too difficult to prove because the company has not maintained accurate time records, and, therefore, the worker will not have a sufficient evidentiary basis for her allegation that she worked long hours without receiving overtime pay. This concern is especially common in cases involving “salaried” workers who have been misclassified as exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement. Many companies do not track the hours worked by salaried employees. It’s time to bust this myth. As discussed below, when the boss fails to keep accurate time records, he does so at his own peril. Courts applying the FLSA recognize that company time records frequently are inaccurate or incomplete. According to the Supreme Court, time clocks do not necessarily record the actual time worked by employees. Where the employee is required to be on the premises or on duty at a different time, or where the payroll records or other facts indicate that work starts at an earlier or later period, the time clock records are not controlling. Only when they accurately reflect the period worked can they be used as an appropriate measurement of the hours worked. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 690 (1946). Moreover, because the company – not the worker – is obligated to maintain accurate records reflecting work hours, the lack of reliable data or recordkeeping can actually benefit the worker in litigation. As observed by the Supreme Court: The solution [to an employer’s lack of accurate time records] is not to penalize the employee by denying him any recovery on the ground that he is unable to prove the precise extent of uncompensated work. Such a result would place a premium on an employer’s failure to keep proper records in conformity with his statutory duty; it would allow the employer to keep the benefits of an employee’s labors without paying due compensation as contemplated by the Fair Labor Standards Act. In such a situation we hold that an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference. The burden then shifts to the employer to come forward with evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negative the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee’s evidence. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result be only approximate. Anderson, 328 U.S. at 687-88. Following the above principles, federal district courts frequently find that, in the absence of reliable time records, workers can prove their hours worked based entirely on the testimony of themselves and their co-workers. For example, in Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL Corp., 427 F. Supp. 2d 327, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), the district court recognized that “it is possible for plaintiff to meet [his] burden [of proving hours worked] by relying on his recollection alone.” Similar holdings abound. In sum, workers and their advocates should not allow inaccurate or incomplete time records to discourage them from pursuing their wage and hour rights. If you, your friends, or your clients have not been paid for all hours worked, you should consult with an experienced wage and hour lawyer. Tags: FLSA, overtime pay, salaried employees misclassified, salaried employees overtime, salaried worker overtime, time records, wage and hour lawsuit, wage and hour lawyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME WORKERS CAN BENEFIT FROM FLSA “WORKWEEK AVERAGING” LITIGATION January 25th, 2011 A Pennsylvania hospital recently delivered checks to hundreds of workers who elected to participate in an FLSA collective action settlement negotiated by The Winebrake Law Firm and approved by the United States District Court. The lawsuit alleged that the hospital calculated overtime in violation of detailed federal regulations by improperly “averaging” overtime workweeks with non-overtime workweeks. It sure is nice when the “fine print” of complex federal rules and regulations can be used to benefit – rather than exploit – American workers and their families. So you should be aware of the following legal principles: The FLSA requires that covered employees receive overtime compensation of “not less than one and one-half times” the employee’s regular rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Under the FLSA, overtime pay generally accrues whenever an employee works over 40 hours in a “workweek” consisting of a fixed and recurring period of seven consecutive days. See 29 C.F.R. §§778.103, 778.105. In calculating overtime hours, each individual workweek generally stands alone, and the “averaging” of workweeks is not permitted. See 29 C.F.R. §778.104. However, the FLSA provides an exception to the 7-day workweek rule for certain health care employees. In particular, section 7(j) of the FLSA provides: No employer engaged in the operation of a hospital or an establishment which is an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises shall be deemed to have violated subsection (a) if, pursuant to an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and employee before performance of the work, a work period of fourteen consecutive days is accepted in lieu of the workweek of seven consecutive days for purposes of overtime computation and if, for his employment in excess of eight hours in any workday and in excess of eighty hours in such fourteen-day period, the employee receives compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed. 29 U.S.C. §207(j) (emphasis supplied); accord 29 C.F.R. §778.601; see also 29 C.F.R. §516.23(b). This exception is known as the “8-and-80 Rule.” Practically speaking, the 8-and-80 Rule enables hospitals and nursing homes to avoid paying overtime when they implement 14-day work schedules wherein employees work a “long” week followed by a “short” week. Such schedules are popular because they enable hospitals and nursing homes to inexpensively cover weekend shifts. For example, many hospital/nursing home employees are assigned recurring schedules in which they work a 6-day, 48-hour week followed by a 4-day, 32-hour week. In the absence of the 8-and-80 Rule, these employees would be entitled to 8 hours of overtime pay during each 6-day, 48-hour week. This translates to approximately 200 hours of overtime pay per year. Under the 8-and-80 Rule, however, such employees receive no overtime pay because, within each 14-day period, the hospital/nursing home is allowed to “average” the long week with the short week. But here’s the catch: The 8-and-80 Rule can be utilized only “pursuant to an agreement or understanding arrived at between the employer and employee before performance of the work.” 29 U.S.C. §207(j). Importantly, “[t]he agreement or understanding between the employer and employee to use the 14-day period for computing overtime must be entered into before the work to which it is intended to apply is performed.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.601(c). Moreover, the agreement or understanding “need not be in writing, but if it is not, a special record concerning it must be kept as required by part 516 of this chapter.” Id. Finally, Part 516 requires “[a] copy of the agreement or understanding with respect to using the 14-day period for overtime pay computations or, if such agreement or understanding is not in writing, a memorandum summarizing its terms and showing the date it was entered into and how long it remains in effect.” Id. at §516.23(b). The Winebrake Law Firm believes that many hospitals and nursing homes throughout the country overlook the technical requirements of the 8-and-80 Rule and do not properly obtain or document the “agreement or understanding” as required by the above federal regulations. If you know or represent hospital or nursing home workers, you should ensure that their FLSA rights are not being violated. Of course, The Winebrake Law Firm would be delighted to consult with you or your clients concerning potential violations of the 8-and-80 Rule. Tags: 8-and-80 Rule, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, health care employees overtime, Hospital and Nursing Home Workers Overtime, one and one-half, overtime compensation, Pennsylvania Wage and Hour Attorney, Pennsylvania Wage and Hour Lawyer, Workweek Averaging ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FLSA “WHITE COLLAR” MISCLASSIFICATION LAWSUITS CONTINUE TO BE FERTILE GROUND FOR LITIGATION January 25th, 2011 Effective August 2004, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) 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. These workers include: a “store manager” who spent much of her time stocking shelves and working the cash register; an “assistant hotel manager” who spent most of her time working at the hotel’s front desk; four “sales managers” who spent most of their time performing pest extermination duties; an “assistant engineer” who spent most of his time performing manual labor; and a “chef” who spent most of his time performing routine kitchen duties. Notwithstanding the DOL’s recent attempt to expand the white collar exemptions, the law remains clear that, in deciding whether a salaried worker is exempt, the court’s analysis must extend beyond the worker’s job title. See 29 C.F.R. §541.2. Moreover, under the FLSA, exemptions must be “narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them.” Arnold v. Ben Kanowski, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392 (1960). Recognizing this, trial lawyers continue to challenge companies’ use of the white collar exemptions to deny overtime pay to workers with few real managerial responsibilities. According to Bob DeRose, a Columbus, Ohio trial lawyer concentrating in wage and hour law: “Trial lawyers should not be deterred by the 2004 regulatory amendments because, in the end, judges are likely to apply a fact-specific and common sense approach in evaluating white collar misclassification.” Tags: administrative exemption to overtime, executive exemption to overtime, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, professional exemption to overtime, salaried employees misclassified, salaried employees overtime, store manager overtime, white collar exemptions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKERS MISCLASSIFIED AS “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS” CONTINUE TO REAP VALUABLE FLSA OVERTIME BENEFITS January 25th, 2011 The overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) cover millions of American workers, including thousands of workers who have been misclassified as “independent contractors.” If you represent workers who have been designated as independent contractors, you should be aware of the “striking breadth” of FLSA coverage. As one appellate court has observed, the FLSA contains “the broadest definition [of employment] that has ever been included in any one act.” Whether an employer truly is an independent contractor exempt from overtime coverage depends on the “economic realities” of her work experience, not the language of her employment contract. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed Pennsylvania district courts to apply a six-factor test to determine whether a worker has been properly classified as an independent contractor. The six factors include:
Recent court decisions demonstrate the continued viability of FLSA independent contractor cases. For example, in April 2007, a Florida district court granted summary judgment in favor of a worker hired to provide maintenance services at trailer park facilities, reasoning that the defendant company exerted substantial control over the plaintiff’s work, which required no special skill. Likewise, in March 2007, a Texas district court granted summary judgment in favor of a group of insurance agents who alleged that they were misclassified as independent contractors, reasoning that the agents “did not exercise any meaningful control over the insurance business they allegedly ran” and that the insurance company “retained control over major variables that determined [the agents’] ability to make profit, held them captive to the business, and made them dependent on [the company] for their success.” Even more recently, a Nevada district court conditionally certified an FLSA collective action brought on behalf of a class of commercial painters, observing that “the labels parties use in contract documents do not control whether overtime pay is required by the FLSA.” The Winebrake Law Firm has successfully fought for workers allegedly misclassified as independent contractors. For example, in May 2007, a Pennsylvania district court approved an FLSA settlement on behalf of thirteen clients who sought overtime pay, alleging that they were misclassified as independent contractors. Likewise, in In re. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. Employment Parctices Litig., MDL 1700 (N.D. Ind.), The Winebrake Law Firm, working with co-counsel throughout the country, seeks to recover overtime benefits on behalf of FedEx delivery workers who allege they were misclassified as independent contractors. If you represent workers who you believe may have been misclassified as independent contractors, you should contact a law firm with experience litigating wage and hour cases. Tags: Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, independent contractors, misclassified as exempt, misclassified as independent contractor, overtime rights of independent contractors |
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
|
