That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post" d/b/a (just for today) "Eric's 36th-Birthday Post".
*** Sigh ***
Ahh...let's get to today's question:
May an employee raise claims in federal court against an employer under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (federal) and a state wage and hour law? Or is the latter preempted by the former, such that an employee may only pursue FLSA claims?
The answer to today's question -- at least in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals -- comes to us from a decision rendered Tuesday in Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp. There, the court recognized that the FLSA "evinces a clear intent to preserve rather than supplant state law." Consequently, it held that state wage and hour laws such as the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act -- two laws that track the federal overtime requirements -- are not preempted by the FLSA.
We also dipped into some hot issues, the hottest of which, by far, based on audience engagement, was unpaid internships. Oh boy, is it easy for companies to potentially screw up unpaid internships. Just ask Charlie Rose and Harper's Bazaar.
Want to get 'em right without running afoul of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Six steps to success follow after the jump...
Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor published new fact sheets on its website. Employers and employees alike will want to check these out:
Here is a link to the FLSA fact sheet. This fact sheet provides general information concerning the FLSA's prohibition of retaliating against any employee who has filed a complaint or cooperated in an investigation.
The FMLA fact sheet, a copy of which you can find here, provides general information concerning the Family and Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) prohibition of retaliating against an individual for exercising his or her rights or participating in matters protected under the FMLA.
And, then, there are those that allegedly do. It is on those occasions that this blog can practically write itself.
Take, for example, AutoNation. According to a complaint recently filed in California state court -- well, let's just say that AutoNation better have some good lawyers.
A copy of the complaint and some crazazy unlawful harassment -- allegedly, of course -- follows after the jump. Along with a few employer tips on same-sex harassment.
That was the question that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals faced in an opinion released yesterday. I'll provide the answer and some analysis after the jump...
After the jump, you'll meet Karenza Clincy. She, along with other "nude, female exotic dancers," sued The Onyx (safe for work), an Atlanta Nightclub, for wage and hour violations. The club claims that the dancers are independent contractors. The plaintiff-dancers claim that they are employees -- and employees get minimum wage and time-and-a-half for overtime.
Who wins? We all do. Hit the jump for a trip down to the A-T-L (feat. Ludacris) and -- what the heck were we talking about -- oh yeah, the answer to some legal question...
Look what arrived in my inbox from the good folks at the Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey:
On September 6, 2011 the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development adopted new regulations on overtime payments to employees. The new regulations will make New Jersey's overtime standards consistent with federal regulations. The Chamber supports this regulatory change, as it clarifies the rules governing overtime pay for employees, making it easier for businesses to comply and avoiding confusion in the compensation of employees. This rule change also makes it easier for companies that do business in multiple states by creating consistency in the treatment of overtime requirements. The new regulations are effective as of September 6, 2011.
If Cochese and Bobby, "The Rookie" were working mall security in Pennsylvania, would their employer have to pay them for the time they spend keeping those uniforms looking 80s-spiffy? If it were up to one Pennsylvania federal court, they would be SOL.
Thomson Reuters had such a bad week last week that I had to spread the news over two blog posts. Here is part one about how the National Labor Relations Board is set to file a complaint against Thomson Reuters for allegedly disciplining an employee who tweeted about labor/management relations.
After the jump, see how bloggers unite to try to stick it to the man for allegedly requiring them to work through their lunch hour without paying overtime...
Earlier this week, I posted a link to the new Fair Labor Standards Act final regulations.
After the jump, I have 15 more resources to help employers navigate the treacherous world of overtime, minimum wage, independent contractor vs. employee, what the FLSA requires, what the FLSA doesn't require, and other wage and hour speedbumps.
Over the weekend, I gave a Wage and Hour presentation in Atlantic City to a group of restaurant owners. Later this week, I will post some of the bullet points from that presentation of which every business should take note.
Until then, a heads-up that the United States Department of Labor has issued a final rule updating the regulations issued under the Fair Labor Standards Act. You can find a copy of the final rule here.
Two Philadelphia posts in a single week. That's called keeping it real.
For local employers, keeping it real may mean moving out of the city, as the cost of doing business in Philadelphia could be on the rise.
Check out this post I did for The Legal Intelligencer about a bill that City Council is currently considering that would require businesses to provide paid sick leave to employees who work a minimum number of hours in Philadelphia County.
In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held yesterday that a company may not retaliate against an employee who orally "filed a complaint" about perceived Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations.
After the jump, I'll break down this decision, just what it means to orally file a complaint, and the impact yesterday's decision will have on employers.
Last month, the United States Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued a request for public comments on its preliminary interpretations of a new provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that requires employers to provide nursing mothers with reasonable break time and a private space for expressing breast milk while at work.
For more information about this new requirement for employers, check out some previous posts I did on the subject here and here.
That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post" d/b/a (just for today) "Eric's 36th-Birthday Post". 
Yesterday, I presented "Reducing the Risk of Wage and Hour Litigation" with my partner, 
And, then, there are those that allegedly do. It is on those occasions that this blog can practically write itself.
That was the question that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals faced in an opinion released yesterday. I'll provide the answer and some analysis after the jump...
The 
In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held yesterday that a company may not retaliate against an employee who orally "filed a complaint" about perceived Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations.
