On September 22, 2020, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a new proposed rule that would, if it becomes final, change the test the DOL uses to determine if a worker is an “independent contractor” or an “employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The result of this proposed rule change will inevitably be that thousands of employees will be reclassified as independent contractors under the FLSA. The FLSA is the federal law mandates employers to pay their employees minimum wage, overtime for time worked over 40 hours, and other record keeping requirements. My goal is to provide a brief overview of the new proposed changes and hidden dangers in the DOL’s proposed rule change.Continue Reading Department of Labor’s New Proposed Regulations Pose a Threat to Employee Rights
How Can I Get My Unpaid Commissions?
While commissions and bonuses are subject to the various laws that regulate wages, such as the FLSA and the Texas Payday Law, they are unique in rather important manners. The most obvious way that they differ from hourly-based and salary-based wages is when they are considered “earned.” Put another way, if you are an hourly worker, your wages are considered earned as soon as you start working. If you have worked for an hour, you have earned an hour’s worth of wages. If you have worked half an hour, you have half of your hourly wage. It is simple. But this same inquiry varies dramatically with workers who earn their wages based on commissions.
Continue Reading How Can I Get My Unpaid Commissions?
Global statement that company did not fire any employee for complaining about wages is not a legitimate non-retaliatory reason.
“Defendants cite the following global statement in both declarations: ‘SDT did not fire anyone for complaining about not getting paid for all time worked.’ Neither [Defendant] mentions [Plaintiff] by name, nor do Defendants identify any other evidence to establish the basis for [Plaintiff’s] termination. The Court finds this evidence insufficient to establish a legitimate, non-retaliatory
Demand for back pay for failure to comply with termination procedures is not a suit for money damages barred by sovereign immunity.
“Where statutory or constitutional provisions create an entitlement to payment, suits seeking to require state officer to comply with the law are not barred by immunity merely because they compel the state to make those payments. Tamayo claims that Chapter 614 created a statutory requirement that Tamayo continue his employment until Sheriff Lucio complied with
An employee may defeat a Twombly motion to dismiss by pleading that he is a nonexempt employee that worked in excess of forty hours per week and was not paid one and a half times his regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked.
“Plaintiffs’ allegations that they were nonexempt, regularly worked more than forty hours per week, and were not paid time-and-a-half to be factual allegations and not legal conclusions.”
Rodriguez v. Gold & Silver Buyers, Inc., Civ. A. No. 4:12–CV–1831, 2013 WL 5372529 at *3 (S.D.Tex. Sept.24, 2013) (Harmon, J.).
A plaintiff may demonstrate that there is a reasonable basis for crediting the assertion that the aggrieved individuals are similarly situated for the purpose of conditional certification where one former employee files a Notice of Consent to opt in after the plaintiff files his motion for certification.
“The Court finds that [the employee] meets his burden to establish that he is similarly situated to other employees in the proposed class. In his declaration, [the employee] states that he was required to work approximately seventy-three hours per week and was paid a flat rate of $145 per day. He did not receive overtime