Posts Tagged ‘ Labor Law ’

8 Things an Exempt Job Status Deprives you of…

October 15th, 2013. By AbiK

A lot of questions we receive here at LawyersandSettlements.com have to do with employment…things like what counts as on-the-job harassment, whether or not someone is owed overtime pay, and questions about wrongful termination. One of the trickiest areas of employment though has to do with misclassification—i.e., whether someone’s position is considered exempt or non-exempt. We discuss misclassification in greater detail on our Unpaid Overtime-Employment info hub on our website. But beyond what most people consider to be the difference between exempt and non-exempt—that exempt jobs don’t qualify for overtime pay while non-exempt ones do—there are other things you should be aware of if you’ve recently been switched over or promoted into an exempt position.

Exempt positions tend to be ones that pay a salary rather than an hourly rate. For many, the chance for what could be a higher rate of pay and no longer “working on the clock” makes pursuing exempt positions worth the trip. Here though are eight protections that an exempt job status deprives employees of—provided by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations (you can find this info at your own state’s department of labor).

8 Things an Exempt Job Status Deprives you of Protection for…

• overtime premium;
• minimum wage;
• reporting time pay;
• requirement of records under the IWC Orders (but not records required by the Labor Code);
• requirement that employer furnish uniforms and equipment (except, of course, that any expenditure by an employee is recoverable under CA Labor Code Section 2802).
• requirement that meals and lodging amounts be limited;
• meal period requirement;
• rest period requirement;

 

Tags: Employment, Labor Law, Unpaid Overtime, Wage and Hour
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment | No Comments »

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 »

CVS Lawsuit: No Sitting Down on the Job!

June 8th, 2012. By AbiK

Well, if the Eagles were to write a lyric for the decision in the CVS cashier seat lawsuit it might be “you can check out anytime you like, but I can never sit.” Or something like that.

Yes, a judge in California has ruled that CVS cashiers don’t have a right to a seat while they’re working the cash register. If you recall, both Wal-Mart and Home Depot were recently hit with similar labor law class action lawsuits—only in those cases it was over chairs for greeters, not cashiers.

In the Home Depot case, the court ruled in favor of the employees who brought the lawsuit; not so with CVS as the job of cashier does not “reasonably permit the use of a seat”. CVS also argued in its defense that they could not maintain the company’s commitment excellent customer service if cashiers were to be sitting down on the job (gives a whole new meaning to that phrase, huh?). I’m not sure what defines “excellent” customer service, but I guess sitting down might make it harder for CVS cashiers to go grab a pack of smokes for a customer or perhaps quickly bag toiletries.

The ‘sit on the job’ CVS lawsuit alleged violations of California’s 2004 Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (aka the “Sue your Boss” law). The lawsuit was brought by former CVS employee Nykeya Kilby—who, btw, was terminated after working at CVS for eight months. Cause of termination: missing work. But the interesting thing here is that Kilby apparently never requested a chair while employed. Go figure.

So if you’re keeping score, it’s Greeters: 1, Cashiers: 0 —for now.

 

Tags: CVS Cashier, CVS Class Action, CVS Lawsuit, Home Depot, Labor Law, Labor Violation, Wal-Mart
Posted in Class Action, Employment | No Comments »

Medical Marijuana Catch-22: You’re Fired

March 24th, 2010. By AbiK

How in hell do the fourteen states where it’s legal—yes, LEGAL—to use marijuana for medical reasons have such a progressive law that, on the flip side, opens the door for employers to fire medical marijuana card-carrying employees who test positive for marijuana use?

According to a cnn.com article, Keith Stroup, who’s on the legal counsel team for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, says he gets around “300 emails and phone calls a year from medical marijuana who have been fired or had job offers rescinded because of a failed drug test.” 

Stroup goes on to say, “Usually they talk about how they have lost their job and I tell them there’s not a thing they can do about it.”

True, in most at-will employment states an employee can be fired for any reason—except for those reasons that put the employee in a federally protected class—such as race, gender, and religion.

But medical marijuana-use employees are not a federally protected class. So employers pretty much Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Discrimination, Employment, Labor Law, Marijuana, Medical Marijuana
Posted in Discrimination, Drugs/Medical, Emerging Issues, Employment | 8 Comments »

Right To Work vs. Employment at Will: what’s the difference?

October 28th, 2009. By Kristine B

Lately, I’ve been researching state employment laws (for the record, I do have a life). And I’ve come across a lot of people who are confused “right to work” and “employment at will.” Can’t say I blame them. So, this week Pleading Ignorance is setting the record straight about…

The difference between “right to work” and “employment at will”

Both “right to work” and “employment at will” are, obviously, employment terms. One has to do with hiring employees (hopefully you) the other has to do with firing employees (hopefully not you).

Right to Work 

“Right to work” laws govern hiring of employees. In a nutshell, “right to work” means that a person has the right to work for a company without being required to either join a union or financially support a union. Basically, if you live in a “right to work” state, joining a union, or paying union dues, can’t be a condition of your employment.

Even in “right to work” states, unions can still legally operate. In fact, they may even still represent all employees in grievances and negotiations. However, they can’t force a person to join the union or pay union dues if the person doesn’t want to.

Now, there are arguments both for and against “right to work” laws. The short version is that Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Employment Law, Labor Law, Pleading Ignorance
Posted in Employment, Pleading Ignorance | 5 Comments »