|
APPLIES TO
All Employers with MN Employees
|
EFFECTIVE
September 18, 2019 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
In In re Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that employers cannot use split-day overtime to comply with state overtime rules, where employees have not yet worked the overtime hours meant to comply with state overtime rules. There, the employer paid employees one rate for the first 5.5 hours worked in a 16-hour day, and 1.5 times that rate for the remaining 10.5 hours. The Court stated that the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees overtime for all hours worked in excess of 48 in a week, regardless of whether the employee received time-and-a-half compensation during the first 48 hours worked.
Additionally, time-and-a-half wages paid during the first 48 hours worked in a workweek cannot be excluded when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay, because those hours were not paid for overtime work (which are excluded when calculating the regular rate of pay). Because federal Fair Labor Standards Act overtime rules vary compared to the state rules, employers must take care to comply with both.
Action Items
- Review split-day overtime policies and procedures to ensure compliance with state wage and hour rules.
- Have payroll processes updated.
- Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
Fifth Circuit: Clarity on Highly Compensated Employee Exception to FLSA Overtime Requirements
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with LA, MS, and TX Employees
EFFECTIVE
August 21, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Faludi v. U.S. Shale Solutions, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal confirmed that an employee’s guaranteed day rate satisfied the Fair Labor Standard Act’s (FLSA) highly compensated employee (HCE) exemption, even though the employee was only paid twice monthly. The HCE threshold—which currently requires the employee to be paid more than $100,000 per year and at least $455 a week on a salary or fee basis—only requires that the employee “regularly receive[s]” the predetermined amount on a weekly or less frequent basis. There is no requirement that the cash amount be calculated on weekly or less basis.
In addition, the Fifth Circuit also stated that the amount the HCE is paid is not required to bear a “reasonable relationship” to the amount actually earned. Employers should take care when setting highly compensated exempt employee pay to ensure compliance with FLSA requirements.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
California: New Bill Provides Employers Relief from California Consumer Privacy Act Requirements
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with CA Employees; See Below
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Governor Newsom signed AB 25 into law, limiting the scope of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as it applies to employers. The bill imposes the limitations from the date the CCPA goes into effect on January 1, 2020, although such limitations are not permanent and will automatically terminate the following year, barring any legislative action.
Read more
California: FEHA Applies to More Employers
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
Employers with 5 or more Employees
EFFECTIVE
October 1, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) changed the definition of “Employer” for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA still applies to employers with five or more employees. However, the way in which those five employees is calculated has changed. Previously, employers must have had five employees “each working day in any twenty consecutive calendar weeks in the current calendar year or preceding calendar year.”
Read more
California: Changing Definition of “Serious Injury” Expands Employer Responsibilities
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with CA Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
AB 1805 revises the definition of a “serious” injury under the California Labor Code, resulting in expanded reporting responsibilities for employers. Currently, employers are required to report to Cal/OSHA any serious injury or death in the workplace as soon as possible, but no later than eight hours after the employer became aware of the death or injury. The timing requirements remain the same, but the revised definition of “serious” injury means employers will potentially need to report more injuries.
Read more
Illinois: Complying with the Illinois AI Video Interview Act
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
August 9, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
A few months ago, the Illinois legislature unanimously passed HB 2557, the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (the Act). This bill addresses employer use of AI in the recruiting/hiring process, namely, AI used to analyze applicants in video interviews. The bill imposes a number of responsibilities on employers to provide notification, information, and obtain authorization from applicants who will be subject to AI analysis. The Act applies to employers who are seeking to fill a position in Illinois.
Read more
Minnesota: Split-Day Overtime is Over
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with MN Employees
EFFECTIVE
September 18, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In In re Minnesota Living Assistance, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that employers cannot use split-day overtime to comply with state overtime rules, where employees have not yet worked the overtime hours meant to comply with state overtime rules. There, the employer paid employees one rate for the first 5.5 hours worked in a 16-hour day, and 1.5 times that rate for the remaining 10.5 hours. The Court stated that the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees overtime for all hours worked in excess of 48 in a week, regardless of whether the employee received time-and-a-half compensation during the first 48 hours worked.
Additionally, time-and-a-half wages paid during the first 48 hours worked in a workweek cannot be excluded when calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay, because those hours were not paid for overtime work (which are excluded when calculating the regular rate of pay). Because federal Fair Labor Standards Act overtime rules vary compared to the state rules, employers must take care to comply with both.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
New York: Court Decision Results in New Challenges with the Frequency of Pay Law
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with NY Employees
EFFECTIVE
September 10, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Vega v. CM & Associates Construction Management, LLC, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court stated that employers may be liable to pay liquidated damages for wage claims surrounding a failure to pay manual workers timely.
Read more
Oregon: Employers MUST Ensure Meal Periods are Taken
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with Oregon Employees
EFFECTIVE
November 14, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Maza v. Waterford Operations, LLC, the Oregon Court of Appeal stated that it was not sufficient that an employer provide employees with the opportunity to take required meal breaks, but that meal premiums must be paid if an employee does not take the required minimum 30-minute break if working shifts longer than six hours, and a second meal break for shifts of 14 hours or more.
There, the employer’s meal break policy stated it was mandatory that employees took the required meal periods and did not permit waiver of a meal period. It also required employees to report if an employee was required to work off the clock. However, the court stated these were insufficient steps and that the employer was strictly liable for a missed or insufficient meal period, regardless of the reason.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase
Oregon: Senate Bill Implements Fixes to Equal Pay Law
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with OR Employees
EFFECTIVE
January 1, 2020
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Senate Bill 123 provides clarity to a few aspects of the Oregon Equal Pay Act (EPA), as well as a voluntary equal pay analysis safe harbor.
Under the EPA, employers are required to pay employees the same rate for work of comparable character, unless the pay differential can be attributed to one or more bona fide factors, such as a seniority system, merit system or system that measures earnings by quantity or quality. SB 123 updates the definition of a “system” to mean “a consistent and verifiable method in use at the time that a violation is alleged.”
Read more
Pennsylvania: Fluctuating Workweek Method of Overtime Pay No Longer Permitted
/0 Comments/in HR Alerts /by ManagEaseAPPLIES TO
All Employers with PA Employees
EFFECTIVE
November 20, 2019
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
In Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated that employers may not use the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of calculating overtime under state wage and hour law. The FWW allows employers to pay a fixed salary, regardless of the number of hours worked, and pay overtime at a half hourly rate for time worked over 40 hours in a week by dividing the fixed salary by the number of hours worked in a week. The idea is that employees already receive the first portion of the overtime rate in the fixed salary.
The Court stated that this method, although permitted under federal law, was not consisted with state wage and hour law, which requires that employees be paid for overtime “not less than one and one-half times” the employee’s regular rate. Employers must stop using the FWW method of calculating overtime and ensure that employees receive one and a half times the regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser.
© 2019 ManagEase