Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Most sophisticated employers are aware that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires that employees be paid overtime when they have worked more than 40 hours per week. Most employers also know that the FLSA contains certain exemptions from that rule. Those exemptions include what are commonly known as the 'white collar' exemptions. The white collar exemptions apply to those employees 'employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.' When those exemptions apply, they may save significant overtime costs and ' often more importantly ' provide employers with useful flexibility for scheduling employees. Unfortunately, many employers in various industries are classifying employees as exempt who do not qualify for the exemption. Failure to pay overtime compensation to employees who are not legally exempt can result in employer liability for the unpaid overtime, liquidated (double) damages, and attorney fees. Given the significant impact that such liability can have on a business and the fact that overtime litigation is increasing exponentially, misclassification of employees is a growing area of concern for employers.
There are many common mistakes that employers make when attempting to classify their employees for purposes of exempting them from overtime compensation. One of the most common mistakes is assuming that if an employee is paid a salary as opposed to an hourly wage, that fact is sufficient to classify the employee as exempt. Another oft-made mistake is assuming that written job descriptions, as opposed to actual duties, constitute grounds upon which to classify certain employees as exempt. Both assumptions are grossly incorrect. The fact that an employee is paid a salary is only one of many factors necessary for classifying an employee as exempt. Similarly, while job titles and written job descriptions may assist in the classification process, it is the actual duties that an employee performs which determine whether or not that employee is exempt.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.