Marcos De Hoyos

Subscribe to Marcos De Hoyos's Posts

The idea of someone taking our hard-earned wages strikes at the core of the average American. After all, we worked for and earned our paychecks. It should therefore come as no surprise that your employer cannot steal any of your wages. But many corporations and companies have become creative. They have found unique and clever ways to shortchange their workers and steal the wages left over. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the restaurant industry. Restaurants have consistently targeted waiters and tricked them into illegally handing over their tips. And the worst part is, many of those affected do not even realize it. This article will examine common ways through which restaurants shortchange their workers and examine waiters’ rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The FLSA was passed to ensure that each and every worker receive the minimum wage as well as overtime pay when employees work for more than 40 hours a week. The only exceptions to this law, however, are restaurants. Although restaurants are required to pay their workers the minimum wage, they are allowed by law to take a “tip credit.” The tip credit allows a restaurant to pay its tipped workers $2.13 an hour rather than the standard $7.25 an hour, the idea being that the wages received plus the tips gained would provide waiters with the minimum wage. Nonetheless, restaurants have found illegal ways to try to circumvent the FLSA and shortchange their workers from the tips they are owed. The following are the most common ways through which restaurants shortchange their workers.

…
Continue Reading Shortchanged: Wage Theft and Your Rights Under the FLSA

To many people in the workforce, the idea of a mass layoff once seemed unfathomable. You grow so accustomed to your job and to the daily routine it enables that it essentially becomes a part of your life that feels permanently fixed. In the midst of the current pandemic, however, mass layoffs, along with resignations and terminations, have become commonplace. The idea of a mass layoff no longer seems like the boogeyman; to many in the workforce, mass layoffs now feel like a very real possibility. Mass layoffs are scary, unpredictable, and harmful, but they should not be unexpected. This article will examine mass layoffs and workers’ rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or “WARN Act”, as it is aptly called, was designed to protect employees in the event of a plant closing or mass layoff. The WARN Act requires employers to provide 60 calendar-day advance notice to employees subject to plant closings or mass layoffs. Employees entitled to notice under the WARN Act include managers and supervisors along with hourly wage and salaried workers. The purpose of the WARN Act’s notice requirement is to give workers and their families the opportunity to transition to new employment and to adjust to their loss and to even enter into skill training or retraining programs to improve upon one’s marketability. The only catch is that notice of a plant closing or mass layoff is required only when the company has 100 or more employees; in other words, if the company that you work for consists of 99 employees (including managers and supervisors), then the company does not have to give you notice of a mass layoff. 

…
Continue Reading Expecting the Unexpected: Mass Layoffs and Workers’ Rights Under the WARN Act

Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was widely considered to be one of the most employee-friendly justices in the Supreme Court’s modern era. Through her lengthy tenure on the court, Justice Ginsburg authored several opinions ruling in favor of employees and unions and has largely broadened the rights of employees. With the recent appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat of Justice Ginsburg, one should expect a significant impact on the rights of employees and the future of employment law. This article will examine the effect of Justice Barrett’s appointment on employer rights, specifically focusing on religious freedoms in the workplace as well as employee discrimination claims. Justice Barrett’s appointment will ultimately create a dynamic in the Court that will more than likely broaden the rights of employers.

Before we delve into Justice Barrett’s effect on employment law, it is worth taking a moment to fully develop her judicial philosophy. Justice Barrett largely takes after former Justice Antonin Scalia in that she hails from a politically conservative background and espouses the interpretative methodologies of textualism and originalism. Textualism is a form of statutory interpretation that tends to focus on the language of the law at the time the law was written as well as what the people understood the words of the law to mean at the time the law was enacted. Originalism, on the hand, focuses more on the intent of the founders in drafting the language of the Constitution. Justices Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh all seem to ascribe to either textualism or originalism or both, making it more than likely the case that Justice Barrett will side on decisions with this bloc of the court. Historically, this bloc of the court tends to side with employers over workers and emphasizes employers’ rights and religious freedoms in its decision-making process. 

…
Continue Reading A Steeper Hill: The Effects of Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Appointment on Employer Rights