Articles Posted in Wage and Hour Law

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia caught the attention of our Illinois overtime rights attorneys. In Robinson-Smith v. Government Employees Insurance Co., No. 08-7146 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 5, 2010), more than 200 auto damage adjusters sued auto insurance company GEICO for unpaid overtime. The adjusters claimed that they were incorrectly classified as administrative employees, making them exempt from overtime laws. A federal district court agreed and granted summary judgment to the workers. However, the D.C. Circuit reversed that decision, saying the claims adjusters meet the definition of administrative employees because they exercise “some discretion” on the job.

The case turns on whether the adjusters exercise “discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance,” as required by the Department of Labor definition of an administrative employee. The adjusters claimed they did not have sufficient discretion or independence, in part because they estimate only the price of auto damage and not liability. The trial court agreed, finding that supervisors have to sign off on some of the adjusters’ decisions, and their decisions were largely constrained by GEICO training and standards. But the appeals court opinion, authored by Judge Karen L. Henderson, said it was undisputed that the adjusters exercised at least some discretion. Because the DOL test does not include a requirement for how often that discretion is exercised or whether it’s a primary duty, the judge wrote, some discretion is enough to make the adjusters ineligible for overtime.

The case follows a similar decision from the Ninth Circuit in In re Farmers Ins. Exch., Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litig., 466 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006). That case had very similar facts, and was also overturned at the appeals level by a court that found the definition of “administrative employee” sufficient for claims adjusters. Like that decision, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Robinson-Smith overturns only a grant of summary judgment for the claims adjusters. This means both sides will still have a chance to prove their claims at trial.

Continue reading ›

Our Oak Brook, Ill. employee rights attorneys were very interested to see a recent labor lawsuit against telecom giant AT&T. Bloomberg News reported Dec. 17 that two separate units of the company were hit with simultaneous lawsuits Dec. 16 over unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs seek to represent more than 5,000 current and former workers who they say were misclassified as low-level managers, so AT&T would not have to pay them overtime. Each of the two lawsuits seeks $500 million in unpaid overtime, as well as compensation for rest and meal breaks that were allegedly not granted.

According to the article, the employees were classified as “Level One” managers, even though their job duties didn’t meet the federal definition of management positions. They say they worked as many as 60 hours a week, or 10 to 14 hours a day, and were expected to be available on weekends, all without overtime pay. In fact, the Atlanta plaintiffs claim that they were eligible for overtime when they worked for BellSouth, before its acquisition by AT&T. Joe Luque, a lead plaintiff in the San Francisco litigation, said in a press release that he was chewed out when he tried to exercise managerial duties by firing a poor-performing employee. The suits come shortly after a Connecticut federal court certified a class of AT&T workers with similar complaints, in a suit filed by the same law firm.

As Chicago overtime rights lawyers, we’re pleased to see workers standing up for themselves against such a large employer. The right to overtime pay is provided by a federal law called the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires time and a half for any work above 40 hours a week. This can be very expensive — so some companies, instead of hiring extra personnel to handle the work, look for ways to break the law. Mis-classifying employees as “managers” with no real management duties is one way to end-run around workers’ rights. Other employers may pressure their employees to work off the clock; work through legally required rest and meal breaks; or shift the extra hours to another week. Unfortunately, far too many workers don’t understand their rights, or are afraid of losing their jobs if they stand up for themselves.

Continue reading ›

Our Chicago overtime rights lawyers were interested in a recent wage and hour decision out of the Second Circuit. In Whalen v. J. P. Morgan Chase Co., No. 08-4092 (2nd. Cir. Nov. 20, 2009), a group of loan underwriters sued J.P. Morgan Chase, their employer, for unpaid overtime in a proposed class action. The plaintiffs contended that they were misclassified as administrative employees, because their duties did not meet the federal Department of Labor’s definition of administrative duties. The district court in New York disagreed and granted summary judgment for Chase. But the Second Circuit reversed that judgment, saying loan underwriters cannot be exempt administrative employees because their work furthered Chase’s core business of making loans, rather than helping to run or direct the company.

For four years, plaintiff Andrew Whalen worked for Chase as an underwriter. His job was to evaluate whether to grant loans to individuals, using detailed guidelines provided by Chase. Some underwriters were sometimes permitted to deviate from these standards. Whalen contended that he frequently worked more than 40 hours a week, but Chase classified him as an administrative employee exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Whalen eventually sued for a declaratory judgment that Chase violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime, but Chase prevailed on cross-motions for summary judgment. Whalen appealed.

The Second started by looking at the definition of administrative employees. The federal Department of Labor says administrative work is “directly related to management policies or general business operations” and “customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment.” Using a variety of documents from the Department on the financial services industry, the court drew a distinction between exempt employees with advisory duties and non-exempt employees who carry out the employer’s day-to-day operations.

Whalen’s job was to sell loans according to Chase’s detailed standards, the court wrote, not to advise customers on which loans to get. This puts the job firmly on the “production” side of Chase’s business, the court wrote, as distinct from management duties or “general business operations” such as human resources. Furthermore, the Second wrote, Chase itself referred to underwriters’ duties as “production” work. In doing so, the court drew a distinction between “production” and “administrative” work supported by its own past decision in Reich v. State of New York, 3 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1993) as well as by precedents in the Ninth, Third and First Circuits. Whalen’s job did not met the management/general business operations test set forth by the Department of Labor, the court wrote, which is enough to conclude that he was not a bona fide administrative employee. Thus, the Second Circuit reversed the trial court’s summary judgment decision.

Continue reading ›