UberBLACK Drivers Are Properly Classified as Independent Contractors

Q.  Have there been any new legal developments on whether gig economy workers can be classified as independent contractors?

A.  On April 11, Judge Michael Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania became the first judge to grant summary judgment on the issue of whether UberBLACK drivers are employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Judge Baylson concluded that Uber correctly classified the plaintiffs — drivers who provided “black car” limousine services for Uber — as independent contractors. Razak v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-573 (E.D. Pa. 2018). The plaintiffs intend to appeal. Although the analysis of independent contractor classification is fact-intensive and varies depending on the type of claim asserted by the plaintiffs, gig economy employers will find the Razak opinion helpful in structuring their independent contractor relationships.

For the full article, click here.

Susan K. Lessack

United States Supreme Court Revises Standard for Review of Exempt Classification

Q.  I heard that the U.S. Supreme Court just issued a ruling finding that auto service workers are exempt from overtime pay. My company is not in the automobile industry. Will this opinion apply to us?

A.  The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion this week in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, finding that auto service workers – those employees who interact with customers and sell them services for their vehicles – are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While the decision directly impacts this small category of jobs, the opinion will have a much more far-reaching impact, since the Court rejected long-standing precedent that exemptions must be construed narrowly against the employer.

In a 5-4 opinion overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision finding that auto service advisors were non-exempt, the Court expressly rejected the principle invoked by the Ninth Circuit and many courts before it that exemptions to the FLSA should be construed narrowly.  Instead, the Court observed that “[b]ecause the FLSA gives no textual indication that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, there is no reason to give them anything other than a fair (rather than a narrow) interpretation.” (internal quotations omitted).  The Court concluded that “exemptions are as much a part of the FLSA’s purpose as the overtime-pay requirement.  We thus have no license to give the exemption anything but a fair reading.”  Finally, the Court remarked, “even if Congress did not foresee all of the applications of the statute, that is no reason not to give the statutory text a fair reading.”

The dissent criticized the Court for rejecting the narrow construction principle for FLSA exemptions “[i]n a single paragraph . . . without even acknowledging that it unsettles more than half a century of our precedent.”

This is the second time that the Supreme Court ruled in this case. In 2016, the Court rejected a 2011 Department of Labor (DOL) regulation relied on by the Ninth Circuit in finding that service advisors were not exempt.  The Court noted in that opinion that the DOL had flip-flopped on the issue several times over the years.  In 1970, the DOL interpreted an exemption in the FLSA for automobile salesmen to exclude service workers.  The federal courts rejected this interpretation, however, and in 1978, the DOL issued an opinion letter agreeing with the courts that service advisors indeed were exempt.  In 2011, the DOL changed course again, issuing the regulation relied on by the Ninth Circuit that service advisors were not included in the exemption for salesmen.

In its 2016 opinion, the Supreme Court found that the 2011 regulation was not entitled to any deference because the DOL had issued it without a sufficiently reasoned explanation. The Court remanded the matter to the Ninth Circuit to consider the meaning of the statutory language without the regulation.  On remand, the Ninth Circuit again held that the service advisors were not exempt, and the case went back up to the Supreme Court, where it was overturned in last week’s opinion.

What This Means for Employers

This new standard – that exemptions should be given a “fair reading” – is a win for employers, as it should now be easier for companies to persuade courts that an employee’s job duties fall within one of the categories for exempt status under federal law. Prior to this ruling, an employer was unable to overturn the presumption of non-exempt status unless it could demonstrate that an exemption “plainly and unmistakably” applied.  Now, it is more likely that employers will be able to convince a federal court that the exemption applies if it is supported by a fair reading of the text.

Employers must continue to be mindful of state court interpretations of their overtime laws, however, which may construe their corresponding overtime exemption more narrowly than the SCOTUS interpretation.

–Tracey E. Diamond

 

 

FLSA Implications When Telecommuting Due to Illness

Q: I received an email from an employee stating that he is sick, but will be working from home.  Should I allow my employee to work remotely while sick?  What are the FLSA implications of allowing an employee to work from home while sick?

A: The practice of working remotely or telecommunicating has become increasingly popular given technological advancements like smart phones, videoconferencing, and instant messaging services.  While telecommuting provides several benefits for employers and employees, it can also create new challenges such as when employees opt to work from home while sick.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), requires employers to pay employees for all time spent completing productive work, regardless if the employer knew that the work was being performed. Although this rule applies to both exempt and non-exempt employees, an employee’s exempt status determines how one’s payment will be calculated when he or she is working from home while sick.

If an exempt employee works remotely while sick, then the employer must pay the employee for a whole day of work, even if the employee only works for an hour or two. However, if a non-exempt employee works from home while sick, then the employer is only required to pay the employee for the actual amount of time worked.  Thus, under the FLSA, even if an employer prohibits employees from working from home while sick, employees must be paid for any productive work they complete.

Whether a company should allow its employees to work remotely while sick depends on a number of factors, including but not limited to the extent of the employee’s sickness and the nature of the employee’s work. For example, working from home with a sprained ankle is different from working with the flu.  Moreover, certain jobs do not lend themselves to working from home, such as face-to-face customer service, working a cash register, working at a food establishment or a construction site.

If an employer decides to allow employees to work from home when they are sick, it is recommended that the employer create and implement a remote work sick policy. This policy should discuss when a sick employee can work from home, which positions the policy applies to, the types of assignments that can be worked on (i.e. responding to emails, or participating in conference calls), and how employees should track their time.  It is also recommended that the employer include language in the policy that gives it the discretion to limit an employee’s ability to work from home if the employee submits subpar work.  If an illness turns into a qualified disability under the ADA, the employer would need to engage in the interactive process to determine whether a telecommuting arrangement would be a reasonable accommodation.  For more information on telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation, see our blog post here.

For assistance drafting a remote work sick policy, contact a labor and employment attorney.

Renee C. Manson

 

Paying Employees During Short Rest Breaks

Q: Do I need to pay non-exempt employees when they go on short rest breaks of 20 minutes or less?

A: Yes.

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) has long taken the position that when employers offer non-exempt employees short breaks of under 20 minutes, the time spent on that break is “compensable” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which has jurisdiction over employers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware) adopted the DOL’s position in a case brought by the DOL against American Future Systems, d/b/a Progressive Business Publications (“Progressive”). The Court concluded that the FLSA “does require employers to compensate employees for all rest breaks of twenty minutes or less.”

The facts of the case are as follows: Progressive’s sales representatives are hourly, non-exempt employees. In 2009, Progressive eliminated paid breaks but implemented a policy called “flexible time,” allowing employees to log-off their computers at any time. However, Progressive only paid employees if they were logged off their computer for less than 90 seconds. If an employee took more than 90 seconds to go to the bathroom, get a cup of coffee, or decompress from a particularly tough sales call, Progressive did not pay the employee.

The FLSA requires that employees are paid for all hours “worked,” but does not define the term “work.” Referring to the FLSA as “humanitarian and remedial legislation” which is to be liberally interpreted, the Third Circuit concluded that the brief periods spent by Progressive’s sales representatives when they logged off the computer clearly were compensable breaks under the FLSA. As the Court reasoned,  “[Progressive’s policy] forces employees to choose between such basic necessities as going to the bathroom or getting paid unless the employee can sprint from computer to bathroom, relieve him or herself while there, and then sprint back to his or her computer in less than ninety seconds. If the employee can somehow manage to do that, he or she will be paid for the intervening period. If the employee requires more than ninety seconds to get to the bathroom and back, the employee will not be paid for the period logged off of, and away from, the employee’s computer.” The Court concluded that this result is contrary to the FLSA and that Progressive’s “flexible time” policy was merely an attempt to circumvent the FLSA’s rules regarding compensable time.

Not all breaks are compensable under the FLSA. For example, the DOL takes the position that bona fide uninterrupted meal periods of 30 minutes or more are non-compensable.

The lesson from this case? Employers should review their policies and practices to ensure that employees are compensated for all types of breaks that are 20 minutes or less. This is true even if an employee violates the company’s break policy. The employee may be disciplined for violating the break policy, but he/she still must be paid.  The good news is that paying for short rest breaks will improve employee morale and avoid liability under the FLSA.

Lee E. Tankle

Employers Not Required to Submit Pay Data or Follow Higher Salary Basis Threshold for Exempt Employees

Q.  What is the status of the EEOC’s requirement that we submit pay data with our annual EEO-1 Form?  Also, have there been any updates on the lawsuit blocking the DOL’s rule raising the salary basis for certain non-exempt employees?

A.  As we reported previously, the EEOC, as part of its effort to detect and remedy pay discrimination, amended its EEO-1 Form to require that employers with 100 or more employees submit detailed pay data on their workforce.  On August 29, 2017, the OMB sent a memorandum to the EEOC, staying implementation of this requirement.  Thus, at least for now, employers may limit the information provided on the EEO-1 Form to data on race, ethnicity and gender by occupational category (but not data on pay or hours worked).

There is similar relief for employers on the DOL overtime issue.  As we reported in a previous blog post, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction last November, blocking the implementation of the Department of Labor’s amendments to the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  On August 31, 2017, the Court took a further step, granting summary judgment blocking the rule.  The Court concluded that the Department of Labor exceeded its authority in enacting a rule raising the minimum salary threshold for executive, administrative and professional exemptions.  This likely is the official end to President Obama’s Final Overtime Rule, although President Trump may revisit the issue of the minimum salary threshold in the future.

For more information on these issues and their impact on employers, please see our Client Alert.

Lee Tankle