Posts Tagged ‘ Employment ’

Got this Kind of Job? You May be Getting Screwed on Overtime Pay

July 24th, 2012. By AbiK

Overtime pay calculations are tricky. And, I’m guessing, most employers can appreciate that especially when those calculations translate to less money being shelled out each pay period. Unfortunately, many employees aren’t fully aware of some considerations that need to go into how overtime pay is based. The following types of work can throw a ringer into overtime pay calculations—and if you’re doing any of these kids of jobs, it may time to double-check how much overtime pay you’ve been taking home.

1. Shift Work. If you’re working various shifts, you may be doing a graveyard shift that pays a higher rate—or, depending on your industry, one shift may pay more than another due to work volumes or time of day. These are referred to as ‘shift premiums’. The basis for your overtime rate should take that into consideration—if it’s not, it could be an overtime pay violation.

2. Non-Discretionary Bonuses. These are bonuses that you might receive based on a quota or some other metric. For example, if you receive safety bonuses based on accident- or injury-free performance, production bonuses based on output or some other measure, attendance bonuses for zero unexcused absences, guaranteed/promised bonuses, profit-sharing bonuses, or bonuses paid as a percentage of earnings—and your overtime pay calculation does not take such into consideration, it may be an overtime pay violation.

3. Paid Commissions or SPIFFs. (SPIFFs are bonuses paid when a salesperson sells a specific product—kind of like when you’re asked if you’d “like some fries with your order”—the more fries an employee sells, the greater bonus he may be entitled to). Commissions can tend vary each month or pay period—but they should be a consideration in how overtime pay is calculated.

4. Piece-Rate Work. If you’re given a monetary incentive to produce over a certain number of units, and that incentive pay is not figured in as part of the basis for your overtime pay calculation, it may be an overtime pay violation.

If you think your overtime pay has been calculated incorrectly and has not taken into consideration any non-discretionary bonus pay, incentive pay or shift premiums, an employment attorney may be able to help.

Tags: Employment, Incentive Pay, Labor Law, Non Discretionary Bonus, Overtime Pay, Wage and Hour Law, Work Bonus
Posted in Employment | 1 Comment »

Publix Unpaid Overtime Class Action: What is Chinese Overtime?

May 1st, 2012. By AbiK

Chinese what? Ok, you’ve probably heard of Chinese water torture. And Chinese New Year. And Chinese take-out (personal fave). But Chinese Overtime?

Yes, Chinese Overtime. If you’re in a job in which the work hours tend to fluctuate each week and you get overtime pay, then you may have heard it referred to as either variable workweek overtime pay or half-time overtime pay.

The department managers and assistment managers who make up the class in the Publix managers unpaid overtime class action lawsuit probably don’t care what the heck it’s called—they just believe they’re getting screwed out of pay. And, if you understand how Chinese overtime works, they’re kind of right.

So here goes: a Chinese overtime primer for those who haven’t had the pleasure of being paid this way…

In some jobs, the hours tend to fluctuate each week. Busier weeks call for longer hours; quiet weeks call for shorter hours. Many times when a job’s hours fluctuate, an employer will pay salaries based on a fixed salary for those fluctuating weeks. So the base salary—the straight-time pay—is the same each week even though the hours may in fact fluctuate.

The upside is that when there isn’t much work, the worker gets paid the set straight-time amount. Sort of a mini-coup for the worker, right?—work less, get paid the same.

The downside, however…well, let’s just say the Publix managers have been living more of the downside (allegedly) than the upside and that’s why they’ve filed the Publix class action lawsuit.

Here’s an example of how it would work–it’s tricky so try to hang with me. Say you’re paid $200 a week as your fixed salary. So regardless of whether you work 22 hours or you work 46 hours that week, you’re getting paid $200 for the week. However, if you worked the 46 hours, you’ve worked overtime and should get overtime pay. And this is where it gets tricky..

See, because you were ALREADY PAID straight time pay for those six hours according to how your pay is calculated (i.e., you get a fixed salary no matter how many hours you work), you won’t get time-and-a-half pay for your overtime hours. Those six hours are paid at only HALF your regular rate–which in management’s eyes is time-and-a-half because they’ve already paid you your fixed salary for those six overtime hours.

Nice deal, eh? Hell yeah for the employers–not so for the employees.

Tags: Chinese Overtime, Employment, Fluctuating Work Week, Overtime Pay, Publix Lawsuit, Publix Overtime Class Action, Unpaid Overtime, Wage and Hour
Posted in Class Action, Emerging Issues, Employment | 22 Comments »

Ruth’s Chris Steak House Faces Discrimination Class Action

October 18th, 2011. By AbiK

Been to a Ruth’s Chris Steak House? Aside from it being a tongue twister (try saying “Ruth’s Chris” fast ten times), once you get inside you’ll notice it looks very…boys’ club.

It’s that solid wood thing going on that’s characteristic of most bigger name steak houses. Like Smith & Wollensky. Or Peter Luger (though Luger’s is missing those white lint-producing tablecloths). Outback, Longhorn’s, Morton’s…same drill. And the handles on those steak knives—if you didn’t know any better you’d think you were handling a Winchester Model 1895.

No, not much feminine going on there. So it seems almost apropos that a sexual discrimination lawsuit would somehow crop up in the midst of all that manliness. And so one has—for Ruth’s Chris Steak House.

A group of current and former female employees has filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Ruth’s Chris. Their complaint alleges that female employees have been subjected to: lower compensation than their male counterparts; sexist comments; and harsher disciplinary action than that which is doled out to the guys there.

The women are seeking class action status for this one, and if gets certified the class would include all female Ruth’s Chris employees who worked at the restaurants or the company headquarters from September, 2006 to the present.

To quote from the lawsuit (Bush v. Ruth’s Chris Steak House, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 10-01721): “The work environment at RCSH [Ruth’s Chris Steak House] is one that is demeaning to women, reflects a culture of male domination and female subjugation, and is a causative factor in the discrimination against women in compensation, promotion, and termination.”

What’s interesting here is that the “Ruth” in Ruth’s Chris was actually Ruth U. Fertel, who purchased Chris Steak House in New Orleans in 1965 and got the whole thing going. She passed away in 2002. One can only wonder what the successful, entrepreneurial businesswoman who created this businessman’s beefery would think of this…

Tags: Employment, Equal Rights, Gender Discrimination, Ruth's Chris Discrimination Lawsuit, Ruth's Chris Steak House, Workplace Discrimination
Posted in Class Action, Emerging Issues, Employment | No Comments »

Employers vs Sick Employees: Whose Side Are You On?

September 14th, 2010. By Hunter West

The recent spate of incidents where employees have been unjustly fired for health issues through no control of their own leaves an unsavory aftertaste, and paints employers guilty of such conduct as mean-spirited. A case in point is the former employee of a Michael’s store who felt pressured to return to work early after a double mastectomy, only to be fired soon after while continuing to undergo chemotherapy. 

As inconvenient as it might be to have a vital employee sidelined for health issues, basic human rights suggest that the employer has a moral obligation to stand behind an employee who is suffering. There are also legal requirements to that end. 

Nor should an employee who has health issues through no fault of his own—but still capable of working—find himself shut out by an employer, and from a job he needs and is quite capable of doing, just because he is not the pristine specimen that may fit the company profile. 

Employees who suffer health discrimination in the workplace can, and do fight back. Recently a breast cancer patient sued her former employer for what she claimed to be an unjust firing and was awarded millions in compensation. 

But there are two sides to every issue—and it can go both ways. 

To wit, employees have to take some responsibility for their own health. When they fail to do so, who can blame an employer for feeling angry and betrayed? 

How long have we known that smoking kills? And yet there are those who smoke like a Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Employment, Job Discrimination, Sick Workers, Wellness, Workplace Discrimination
Posted in Employment | No Comments »

Riddle: How Many Make a Class for a Wal-Mart Class Action?

September 1st, 2010. By LucyC

Question: How many people does it take to make a class in a class action lawsuit?

Answer: That depends on how much money you have to spend.

Faced with a potential class action lawsuit over allegations that the world’s largest private employer discriminated (discriminates?) against its female employees, Wal-Mart has so far managed to avoid a trial by insisting that the roughly 1 million women who worked for them since 2001 don’t constitute a class. That’s nine years of legal wrangling and it ain’t over yet.

Just as a quick reference, according to one legal dictionary I checked the definition of a class is: “a lawsuit that allows a large number of people with a common interest in a matter to sue or be sued as a group.” That seems fairly straight forward to me. As indeed it did to a federal court judge in 2004, who ruled that the women do constitute a class. Wal-Mart, apparently having the funds available to drag this out—appealed the decision, but in April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the 1 million women constitutes a class, and that the case could proceed.

But no. Not yet. Wal-Mart—the harbingers of “Save Money. Live Better.”—seem to be following their own advice to the letter, figuring it’s likely cheaper to fight this now than risk going to court or paying a settlement—both outcomes they are very familiar with—is taking the matter to the Supreme Court. 

A recent editorial in the NY Times states this is “probably a smart legal move, given the Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Discrimination, Employment, Fair Pay, Wal-Mart, Walmart
Posted in Employment | 2 Comments »