Posts Tagged ‘ FLSA ’

Celine Dion Sued for Overtime Pay, Settles with Former Employees

October 2nd, 2012. By AbiK

Seems the Queen of Love Songs hadn’t been showing the love to two of her former employees. Celine Dion has settled an unpaid overtime lawsuit filed by her former warehouse manager, Keith Sturtevant, and her former front-gate security guard, Raymond Weaver.

To be fair, the lawsuit was filed not only against Ms. Dion, but also against her husband, Rene Angelil and their production company, Feeling Productions, Inc. (Case No. 2:2012cv14236 filed June 27, 2012 in Southern District Court of Florida)

Sturtevant claimed he not only worked at Dion’s warehouse, but also performed various duties at Dion’s house—things like cleaning window shutters on the house, fixing kitchen items and running errands. Sounds like he was a jack-of-all-trades for Ms. Dion as he also apparently set up and tore down party equipment at various events hosted by Dion. According to the lawsuit, Sturtevant was classified as an exempt employee—meaning he would not be eligible for overtime pay; but he performed non-exempt job duties and, therefore the lawsuit argued, he should have been entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. (Click here for more on exempt vs. non-exempt and what it all means.)

The other plaintiff, Weaver—the security guard—alleged having to take on other duties unrelated to security. These include cleaning Dion’s driveway (it apparently would get berries on it), hosing down patios, cleaning rust off bolts in the swimming pool and lazy river, cleaning tennis courts and, from the sound of it, playing cabana boy should a beach umbrella or two need to be set up—or taken down. Weaver also claimed he was misclassified as exempt.

Well, we won’t know the terms of the settlement, but rather than go to court to duke it out Ms. Dion has settled with Sturtevant and Weaver. And let’s hope both gentleman request detailed job descriptions at their next places of employment…

Tags: Celine Dion, FLSA, Misclassified Employee, overtime lawsuit, Overtime Settlement, Unpaid Overtime
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment, lawsuits, Settlement | No Comments »

Hollywood Lawsuit #1: Black Swan Interns Name Wrong Defendant?

October 4th, 2011. By AbiK

It’s a long-standing reality that the words “glamour and prestige” don’t find themselves in the same sentence with “unpaid intern” in just about any industry. But, when it comes to movie production gigs or landing a plum internship at a fashion mag, they never do.

And there’s a reason for that.

The reason is, you’re there as low-cost help—ok, exceedingly low-cost help—for which in return you get to learn, potentially come within 50 feet of the talent or score some swag—and—and here’s the biggie—you get to pay your dues. Why? Because if you’re going for an unpaid internship you’re most likely trying to rack up resume bullet points (or, nowadays, LinkedIn blurbs) and, btw, you most likely don’t have enough of those bullets and blurbs to actually land a paying gig.

Ahh, but that harsh reality has not stopped Alex Footman and Eric Glatt from filing a labor lawsuit against Black Swan movie production company, Fox Searchlight. Indeed, they’re seeking class action status. And back pay. And an injunction prohibiting Fox Searchlight from improper use of unpaid interns.

It seems both Footman and Glatt were given the opportunity to work as unpaid interns on the flick. But they were treated badly—badly as in having to get coffees and lunches. I don’t know what they expected, beyond what the FLSA outlines as criteria for an internship at a for-profit,  but I’m sort of glad after seeing the movie that no one at the helm offered them an internship manning the camera, making final edits—or doing Natalie Portman’s makeup.

The FLSA internship guidelines include the following six criteria:

• The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
• The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
• The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
• The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be  impeded;
• The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
• The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

It’s probable, or at least highly arguable, that Footman and Glatt got training & experience, got an incredible credit on their resumes, didn’t displace anyone, were supervised, probably got more out of the deal than the production company did, did not have any promise of a job ex post facto and weren’t paid.

Public sentiment (as in comments I’ve been reading across the web on this story) seems to support the notion that perhaps Footman and Glatt have been living in some self-entitlement fairyland in which they’ve interpreted an unpaid internship to equate something akin to an actual new hire program. You know—where the red carpet (no pun) is rolled out for that honeymoon phase of employment…the company’s vision statement handed over in colorful PowerPoint…the new hire welcome luncheon…the mentor program…the benefits enrollment…

I’m usually all for the down-trodden workers—those who are really being ‘used and abused’—like the alleged abuse going on over at that Amazon warehouse. But somehow, this Black Swan intern lawsuit just doesn’t seem to have enough going for it for me. Maybe I feel this way even more so as a result of Fox Searchlight’s official response to the lawsuit—a key excerpt of which is here:

“These interns were not even retained by Fox Searchlight and, in fact, were working for the production company that made Black Swan well before Fox Searchlight even acquired its rights in the film. These individuals were never employed as interns or retained in any capacity by Fox Searchlight, which has a proud history of supporting and fostering productive internships.”

If indeed true, it just makes a mockery out of things here even more—and may make plaintiffs Footman and Glatt black sheep of the film industry (ok, couldn’t resist that one). It sort of helps your cause when you sue the right defendant, right? And, I can only postulate that well, let’s face it, if you want your lawsuit to grab headlines, better to go with a bigger name defendant like Fox Searchlight, right? (ps, Fox Searchlight’s official response also stated that it was an attempt to grab media attention; it was reportedly director Darren Aronofsky’s production company who had initially brought Footman and Glatt on as unpaid interns).

We’ll have to monitor this one, but in the meantime, it’s been announced that Darren Aronofsky is set to direct  the new film, Noah. Word to the unwise (and unpaid) interns who are chomping at the bit to be a part of this one: don’t forget your wellies.

Tags: Black Swan, Black Swan Intern Class Action, FLSA, Fox Searchlight, Internship, Unpaid Intern
Posted in Celebrity, Class Action, Employment | No Comments »

In Charlton MA, A Case for Suing Your Current Employer?

July 9th, 2010. By Hunter West

In 2003 Curt Meskus had a long-standing commitment to the Charlton Fire Department as a call firefighter. At any time of the day or night he could be called in to help fight a fire, or help manage some other emergency the fire department might respond to. He would be paid an hourly rate by the fire department, a service provided by the municipality.

Then, seven years ago, Meskus was hired as the Building Commissioner for that same municipality. The latter would be a full-time job v. the on-call, as-needed structure of his fire department gig that he intended to keep.

Why not do both? Months could go by without a whiff of smoke. If he was, indeed called out during regular hours of his building commissioner job, he could always make up the lost time after hours.

Some may say Meskus has initiative. Others might call him greedy—you know, double-dipping*. But no one could argue Meskus’ status as an honest citizen who is completely above-board. When he was hired by the municipal selectmen for the building commissioner job in 2003, Meskus was up-front about his firefighting responsibilities, which he had no intention of abandoning. In fact, Meskus was the assistant call fire chief.

The municipality didn’t appear to have a problem. In fact, Meskus has been re-appointed to the position of Building Commissioner every year since by the municipal selectmen in Charlton, MA, without hesitation or debate.

Then someone complained. Another municipal employee questioned if the arrangement Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Charlton MA, Curt Meskus, Employment, FLSA
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment | 4 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 »

Top 3 Problems with Overtime Pay

August 11th, 2009. By AbiK

So, you think everything’s on the up and up when you and your employer make a little agreement on how you’ll be paid for overtime. Usually, everything is on the up and up. But when it comes to exactly how overtime pay is paid out, things can get a little sticky. Here, 3 tricky examples of when overtime pay agreements may seem legitimate in your eyes and your employer’s, but not to the federal government. In this case, big brother’s watching, and it’s a good thing…

1. Fixed Sum for Varying Amounts of Overtime

Any time there’s an agreement for a lump sum to be paid for work performed during overtime hours without regard to the number fo overtime hours worked, it does not qualify as overtime pay—even if the lump sum amount is equal to or greater than the amount of overtime that would be paid on a per-hour basis. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: FLSA, Overtime
Posted in Employment | No Comments »