Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Work Overtime to Ensure That Your Unauthorized Employees Do Not
Consider the following hypothetical scenario:
- Your company policy states that a non-exempt employee cannot work overtime, unless the employee receives prior written approval.
- Your company policy says that an employee who works overtime that is not authorized can be subject to discipline up to, and including, termination of employment.
- Your company did not believe that its non-exempt employees worked overtime hours.
- The overtime hours worked by non-exempt employees were unauthorized.
- Your company is found liable for significant unpaid overtime wages.
This situation is not so far-fetched, particularly after the federal Court of Appeals in New York ruled earlier this year that an employer cannot necessarily avoid liability for overtime wages ' even if its policy requires prior approval for overtime work, and even if the employer did not have actual knowledge that its employees were working overtime hours. This article looks at the surge in overtime litigation, the court's recent decision and steps for limiting your company's potential exposure.
A Surge in Overtime Litigation
As we have passed the mid-way point of 2008, it is clear that wage and hour lawsuits continue to dominate a large portion of all new cases filed in court each day. This noticeable surge will continue, if not further increase, as current and former employees claim in increasing numbers that they have been classified improperly as 'exempt' employees, and thus are owed overtime premium pay. These cases are often prosecuted through class action lawsuits, where the existence of multiple plaintiffs raises the potential for significant exposure to the employer.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.