Pleading Ignorance Archive

Overtime Pay Part 2: Revenge of the Administrative Assistants

October 18th, 2009. By Kristine B

Okay, so it may sound like a really bad, B movie. But the truth of the matter is that a lot of people are not getting their overtime pay because they have the words “managerial,” “administrative,” or “executive” in their job title. But those titles alone don’t make a person exempt from overtime. So for Pleading Ignorance this week, we’re looking at the ins and outs of exemption from overtime pay. 

To refresh your memory, last week we looked at the three questions that you must answer “Yes” to in order to be considered exempt from overtime pay—meaning if you answer ALL 3 questions with a “yes”, you are not entitled to overtime pay.

The first question is pretty straightforward… 

1. Do you make at least $23,600 per year (or $455 per week)? 

If “No,” then you are eligible for overtime pay and you needn’t go further. But, if you answer “Yes,” then move on to the next question… 

2. Are you paid salary? 

To be exempt from overtime pay, you MUST be on salary. Employees who are paid an hourly rate are eligible for overtime pay. Fair enough. However, just because you are paid salary doesn’t mean you don’t qualify to get the extra bucks if you work extra hours. Remember, you must have answered “Yes” to all three questions, not just the one about the salary.

The first two questions are pretty no-brainer—but the third question is where things get screwy because it can appear to have a lot of gray areas. But in reality, it’s pretty straightforward as well…

3. Are your main job duties administrative, professional or executive? Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Exempt, Overtime Pay, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Emerging Issues, Pleading Ignorance | No Comments »

Overtime Pay: How do I Know if my Employer Owes me Money?

October 5th, 2009. By Kristine B

Yeah, it sounds like a bad Whitney Houston flashback…”How will I know if he…” Whoa there—back on topic. Overtime pay? Good question. So that’s the focus of this week’s Pleading Ignorance.

If you’ve opened a newspaper lately—or looked at virtually any news website including our own recent post on 61 companies with OT pay issues—you’ll know one of the major issues in US courts right now is Overtime Pay—or more aptly, missing overtime pay from a lot of folks’ paychecks. What you might not have known is that overtime laws in the US are not as clear-cut as many people think. In fact, if you’re not getting overtime pay there’s still a chance you should be. How’s that? Read on…

Overtime in a Nutshell

Basically, overtime occurs when a person works more than a set amount of time either daily (over 8 hours in a day), or weekly (over 40 hours in a week). Overtime is regulated by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and by state laws. When both the state and the FLSA cover overtime, employers must go with whichever one holds the employer to the highest standards—essentially meaning whichever one provides the most pay to the employee (that’s good news for the employee).

When an employee works more than 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week—and let’s be honest, who hasn’t worked that much at some point—the employee is supposed to get 1.5 times her regular wage (that’s the “time and a half” everyone’s always talking about).

So, let’s say an employee makes $10 an hour and works 44 hours in a week. The employee should be paid $10 for the first 40 hours and $15 for the additional 4 hours.

Seems straightforward, no? But it’s not, because not everyone is eligible for overtime pay and that is where things can get kind of tricky, to put it mildly.  Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: FLSA, Overtime, Overtime Pay, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Employment, Pleading Ignorance | 168 Comments »

How an MDL Class Action is like Super Target

August 25th, 2009. By AbiK

There’s been a lot of talk about multi-district litigation, or MDL, lately. Thanks to the coverage of the Chinese drywall situation, the term “MDL” has shown up more in the news. But what is an MDL? Pleading Ignorance takes a look at MDL, with some insight from attorney Gary Mason—one of 50 lawyers who’s been assigned to work on the Chinese drywall case. So…

What is Multi-District Litigation (MDL)?

I like to think of it as going to a ramped up big-box retailer (like Super Target) vs. hitting a drug store, bakery, deli, grocery store and say, Old Navy, in separate trips. The consolidated Super Target just makes it easier to get what I want and need—that’s kind of the point behind an MDL.

MDL, or mulit-district litigation, allows for common issues that are part of many claims across multiple districts in a class action to be consolidated in one court for pre-trial proceedings. A judicial panel decides whether a case can be consolidated—so a group of lawyers can’t just decide on their own to consolidate things—it needs to be approved. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: MDL, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Pleading Ignorance | No Comments »

What the heck is Qui Tam?

August 20th, 2009. By AbiK

We’ve been posting about whistleblowers and it’s hard to talk about whistleblowing without coming across the phrase “Qui Tam”. Looks like some Latin thing again that legal folks are famously in love with—and, alas, it is! But beyond the Latin, why does it always seem to show up with whistleblowing cases? Pleading Ignorance takes a look at…

What the heck is Qui Tam?

First off, let’s be clear. Qui tam itself is not the full Latin phrase that the phrase initially comes from (got that?). Qui tam comes from this:

“qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hoc parte sequitur”

which, if we grab our handy dandy Cassell’s Latin dictionary, we’ll find means this:

“he who sues for the king as well as for himself”

Now, I don’t know. Maybe someone figured out at some point that we no longer have kings here on American soil. Who knows? But at some point, we got tired of tiring to remember the full Latin phrase, and gave it a nickname: Qui tam. Period. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Pleading Ignorance, Whistleblowers
Posted in Pleading Ignorance | 3 Comments »

At Risk of a Layoff? Make sure you’re WARNed

August 17th, 2009. By AbiK

When facing an employment layoff, typically there’s a lot of closed door meetings, hush-hush hallway conversations, and if you’ve been involved with a major corporate “restructuring”, there can even be code names. Lots and lots of secrecy. But when it comes time to actually announce mass layoffs, there’s a little thing called the The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act—aka, WARN. The WARN Act is in place to protect workers from covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs (so it does not apply to a sole individual losing his job).

Pleading Ignorance takes a look at the WARN Act this week—it continues to me a timely topic given the economy. So let’s learn some more…

What is the WARN Act for plant closings and mass layoffs?

According to the US Dept. of Labor Employment and Training Administration, the WARN Act:

…offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Employment, Pleading Ignorance, WARN Act
Posted in Employment, Pleading Ignorance | No Comments »