Mesothelioma Asbestos Lawyer, DuBose Law Firm, PLLC

Main navigation

You are here: Home / Archives for Laws / Employment Law

Employment Law

The Construction Industry Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

By

Businesses involved in the construction industry are engaged in the activities of new construction or reconstruction. The repair or renovation of existing commercial and/or residential structures, as well as roadway and bridge construction, are also a part of this industry. The following work activities are included in the construction industry: painting, sandblasting, tuckpointing, roofing, guttering, spouting, water well drilling, installation of flooring and landscaping. 

Requirements for construction industry 

Employers who are covered under the FLSA must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Regulations, 29 CFR Part 516.

Also, an employer must establish a workweek (7 consecutive 24-hour periods) and must pay overtime when hours worked exceed 40 in the workweek. The practice of paying overtime only after 80 hours in a bi-weekly pay period is illegal since each workweek must stand alone. 

For non-exempt employees, covered employers must pay the Federal minimum wage and time and one half the regular rate of pay for time worked over 40 hours in a workweek. These businesses must also be aware of the potential for violations of the youth employment requirements of the FLSA. This is especially critical due to the dangerous nature of both the work performed and the tools used in this industry.

If the employer performs work on a federally financed project or a project in which the Federal government has provided assistance in financing the project, a different and somewhat stricter set of labor standards applies. Typically, this would require that employees performing on such contracts be paid a “prevailing wage rate”.

Youth Minimum Wage: The 1996 Amendments to the FLSA allow employers to pay a youth minimum wage of not less than $4.25 an hour to employees who are under 20 years of age during the first 90 consecutive calendar days after initial employment by their employer. The law contains certain protections for employees that prohibit employers from displacing any employee in order to hire someone at the youth minimum wage.

Typical Problems

(1) Failure to record all hours actually worked to include time spent working before or after the shift. (2) Shorting of hours by using terms such as down time or rain delay. (3) Failure to compensate for meal breaks where the employee is not completely relieved of all duties to enjoy uninterrupted time for the meal. (4) “Banking” of overtime hours or payment of overtime in the form of “comp time”. (5) Failure to combine the hours worked for overtime purposes by an employee in more than one job classification for the same employer within the same workweek. (6) Failure to segregate and pay overtime hours on a workweek basis when employees are paid on a bi-weekly or semi-monthly basis. (7) Failure to pay for travel from shop to work-site and back. 

Other Pertinent Labor Laws

(1) The Immigration Reform and Control Act requires employers to complete and maintain I-9 forms to verify the employment eligibility of all individuals hired after November 6, 1986. (2) The Wage Garnishment Law limits the amount of an individual’s income that may be garnished and prohibits firing an employee whose pay is garnished for a single debt. (3) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act prohibits most private employers from using any type of lie detector test either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment. (4) The Family and Medical Leave Act requires covered employers to provide eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave each year for specified family and medical reasons. (5) The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts require payment of prevailing wages on federally funded or assisted construction projects.

Supreme Court Considers Class Arbitration in Employment Law Claims

By

On October 29, 2018, the Supreme Court heard oral argument concerning class arbitration in employment law claims in Lamps Plus, Inc. v Varela. What’s on the line? Whether general arbitration clauses in employment contracts preclude the right to a collective or class arbitration.

Cases affecting class arbitration in employment law claims

Dallas employment law attorney, Ben DuBose, says “Last year, the Supreme Court’s Epic Systems ruling struck a big blow by holding that arbitration clauses in employment papers override a worker’s rights to bring Fair Labor Standards Act claims in the court system.” Now, DuBose says, “Lamps Plus could further whittle down worker rights.”

The lower appellate court found against Lamps Plus by holding that the general arbitration clause, which did not expressly state it prevented collective or class arbitration, because of its ambiguity permitted class or collective arbitration.

While Lamps Plus does not directly involve Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims, its impact could apply to a broad range of employment law based claims.

The combination of last year’s Epic Systems ruling which held that forced arbitration clauses are enforceable in employment contracts, coupled with an adverse ruling in Lamps Plus would result in employees only being able to bring individual cases in arbitration – absent express language in an arbitration clause consenting to class arbitration.

Employee rights at stake

In an arbitration, the parties give up their 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury as well as their right to appeal on substantive grounds to a court of law. Instead, arbitration takes place outside of the court system with a private arbitrator, often selected by the employer per the terms of the arbitration clause.

Questioning from the Court during oral argument suggests the Court will be closely divided on what standard should be applied to determine parties have agreed to class arbitration. The Lamps Plus decision will be issued during the spring or early summer of 2019.

Sex Discrimination in the Workplace – An Ongoing Fight

By

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted to prevent sex discrimination in employee wages. Signed into law on June 10, 1963, the Equal Pay Act was part of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. After signing the bill into law, President Kennedy remarked: “While much remains to be done to achieve full equality of economic opportunity – for the average woman worker earns only 60 percent of the average wage for men – this legislation is a significant step forward.”

As an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Equal Pay Act was part of the same legal framework that establishes federal wage and hour laws.

Equal Pay Act provisions

The EPA provides that the employer may not pay lower wages to employees of one gender than it pays to employees of the other gender, employees within the same establishment for equal work at jobs that require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions.

Significantly, the EPA does not contain an intent requirement within the statutory language. Liability under the EPA is established by meeting the three elements of the prima facie case:

1. different wages are paid to employees of the opposite sex;
2. the employees perform substantially equal work on jobs requiring skill, effort, and responsibility; and
3. the jobs are performed under similar working conditions

If an employee can establish these elements, then the EPA imposes strict liability on employers who engage in wage discrimination on the basis of gender.

1972 broadening of the Equal Pay Act

In 1972, the Education Amendments to the EPA broadened the Act to cover executives, outside salespeople and professionals. This short Bat Girl video from the Department of Labor illustrates the issue.

Current sex discrimination for equal pay status

Despite the progress of the last half-century since passage of the EPA, there hasn’t been much improvement in the last decade in closing the gap further between genders. The most recent research shows women in the United States still make only 80%, on average, of their male counterparts. A host of factors are attributed to the slowing of improvement on this issue.

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Big Blow to Worker Rights

By

Supreme Court strikes big blow to worker rights

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis struck a big blow to worker rights. At issue was whether employer arbitration agreements, often signed as beginning day employment papers, can prevent workers from pursuing their right to participate in class or collective actions against their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The history

Enacted in the 1930s, the FLSA established wage and hour rights including the federal minimum wage and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 during the workweek. Under the FLSA, workers can recover for underpaid and miscalculated wages. The statute also provides that current and former employees can pursue a type of class action known as a collective action so that other workers that have suffered similar wage losses can be identified and joined into the case. Collective actions can also help streamline litigation by creating efficiencies in time and money.

The opposing statute at issue in Epic Systems Corp. is the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The FAA provides that parties may contractually agree to resolve disputes through binding arbitration rather than the court system. In an arbitration, the parties give up their 7th Amendment right to a trial by jury as well as their right to appeal on substantive grounds to a court of law.

The ruling

In Epic Systems Corp, the Court rejected National Labor Relations Board’s contention that class waivers violate employee rights to take collective steps for their “mutual aid and protection.” The Court ruled that employers can require employees to arbitrate disputes with their employer and waive their right to pursue or participate in class or collective actions. The FLSA is silent about overriding arbitration agreements. Ultimately, “[i]n the Federal Arbitration Act,” the Court held, “Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms – including terms providing for individualized proceedings.”

The future

As both Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority and Justice Ginsburg, for the dissent, point out – this result is something Congress can fix statutorily by clarifying that collective action rights cannot be waived by arbitration agreements. The Court also provides a sliver of daylight to workers by acknowledging state law contractual defenses to arbitration clauses still exist with respect to class waiver arbitration agreements.

Arbitration can be equitable and advantageous for parties of comparable bargaining power that willingly enter into such an agreement. But, more often than not, employment agreements with arbitration clauses involve a large disparity in favor of the employer. Employees often aren’t even aware they’ve signed an arbitration agreement.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s broad holding that forced arbitration clauses and class action waivers are enforceable in employment contracts will have a broad impact on millions of workers and will likely impact other areas of employment law beyond wage and hour disputes.

Microsoft No Longer Forces Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

By

In December, Microsoft announced it will no longer force secrecy in sexual harassment claims through the contract clause called forced arbitration. Going forward, Microsoft’s contracts will have this section removed.

What is forced arbitration?

For too long women, and men, subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace have been unable to take the matter to trial due to this clause. This results in fewer public trials and smaller settlements for the victims as claims are mediated through a third party without the ability to go to court. Just as troubling, forced arbitration hides what may be a widespread or ongoing problem within an organization from public knowledge.

Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said, “By doing this, Microsoft is saying that it’s going to take concrete steps to make its workplace culture more conducive to addressing and preventing harassment. That message is important above and beyond the impact on individuals whose contracts are about to change.”

Martin further stated, “While Microsoft apparently didn’t use these provisions across its workforce, some companies use them more indiscriminately across their workforces to bind lower-wage workers as well as higher-wage workers. By standing up and saying that it believes that these provisions aren’t fair to employees, Microsoft helps change the conversation in a way that has the potential to help a lot of people by increasing the pressure on companies to do the same.”

Will this change sexual harassment claims?

This is a step in the right direction, however approximately 60 million American workers have these arbitration clauses in their contracts, and according to a study by the Employment Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy, 80% of America’s 100 largest companies use them.

While changing the clauses and culture in the large companies would make a huge impact, working in a small company may still bind employees to forced arbitration in the event of sexual harassment. These companies could be fearful of lawsuits that would put them out of business and are not nearly as visible as a company such as Microsoft. Therefore, they will probably not face media disapproval in the same way and are not willing to take their chances in a court of law just to avoid negative publicity. For them, the forced arbitration clause is an insurance policy.

Legislators see need for reform

In December 2017, a bipartisan group of lawmakers called for legislation to end forced arbitration for sexual harassment claims in the workplace. Rep. Cheri Bustos, a Democrat from Illinois sponsored two pieces of legislation: H.R.4734 and H.R.4570. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat from New York, also backs the bill. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, called on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to support the bill. Both bills were referred to the subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

 

Other blog post from DuBose Law Firm

Arbitration Agreements Change for Nursing Homes and Long Term Care Facilities