Wage & Hour Issues

That Time You Spend Logging On (and Off) Your Work Computer May Be Compensable Under Federal Law

October 24, 2022 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Today, more and more workers do their jobs via a computer. As most computer-based workers know, getting into (and out of) the programs and/or applications necessary to do your job can be time-consuming. What you may not know, however, is that the time spent waiting on a computer could be time that’s compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Whether you’re an employee or an employer, a knowledgeable Atlanta wage and hour lawyer can help you assess your situation for compliance with the law.

While not from here in Georgia, a recent FLSA case regarding computer-based workers shows how employees can be owed pay for these log-in and log-out times. The case pitted a group of Las Vegas-based customer service call center agents against their employer.

The employer required the call center agents first to log into the employer’s timekeeping program before logging into any other work-related programs. Allegedly, due to a series of variables, this process of reaching the timekeeping program could take as much as 20 minutes, with the average time ranging somewhere between seven and 12 minutes.

The U.S. Department of Labor Just Announced a New Proposed Rule for Independent Contractor Classifications: What it May Mean for You

October 17, 2022 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

For many workers in this so-called “gig” economy, one of the biggest issues they (and the entity that retains their services) must confront is whether that worker is an independent contractor (who is not covered by many of the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act) or an employee (who, unless exempt, generally is covered by the law.) Often, these classifications are inappropriate and the worker in question, based on the nature of his/her job, qualifies as an employee, not an independent contractor. When that happens, you may have a claim for compensation wrongfully denied to you, meaning you should get in touch with a knowledgeable Atlanta worker misclassification lawyer right away to discuss your circumstances.

A new proposed rule that the U.S. Department of Labor announced earlier this month could make it harder for employers to classify workers as independent contractors. The new rule seeks to limit independent contractor status only to those workers who, “as a matter of economic reality, are not economically dependent on their employer for work and are in business for themselves,” according to the Labor Department.

The existing rule has five “economic realities” to guide the classification of workers as independent contractors versus employees. The rule split those five into two “core factors,” which were the nature and degree of the hiring entity’s control over the work and the worker’s “opportunity for profit or loss,” and three lesser factors, which were the degree of skill the work required, the extent to which the hiring entity-worker relationship was or was not a permanent one, and whether the worker’s work was part of an integrated unit of production.

Dismissal of Georgia Judge’s Petition for Mandamus to Collect Back Pay Affirmed on Appeal

September 10, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Everyone wants to be paid fairly, from the most modestly paid fast food worker to the most highly compensated executive. Even judges want to be paid every penny that they are due. In addition to state and federal laws regarding wage and hour issues, there may be other remedies available to a worker who believes that he or she has not been paid fairly. An Atlanta employment law attorney can explain the process of seeking back pay or other compensation that you may be due if you suspect that your employer has acted illegally with regards to payment of your salary or wages.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a state court county judge who filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the defendants, a county and several of its commissioners. According to the plaintiff, she was owed back pay and other relief due to the defendants’ violation of Georgia Constitution of 1983, Article VI, § VII, Part V. The constitutional provision upon which the plaintiff relied states, in essence, that an incumbent judge’s salary, allowance, or supplement is not to be decreased during his or her term of office; the plaintiff averred that the county had improperly calculated her salary, resulting in an illegal reduction in her overall compensation each year from 2007 to 2017.

The trial court ruled in the defendants’ favor, holding that the plaintiff’s mandamus action was barred by gross laches but, even if it was not, mandamus was not an appropriate vehicle for the relief sought by the plaintiff and, even if mandamus was proper, there was no merit to the plaintiff’s claims.

Georgia Employee Was Entitled to Pursue Quantum Meruit Pay, Even Though His Employment Contract Was Too Vague to Enforce

June 5, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Each Atlanta employment law case is unique, with its own set of facts and issues. In addition to matters such as sexual harassment and employment discrimination, the issue of compensation is fairly common.

Disputes about an employee’s pay can occur at many different pay levels, from employees who maintain that they were not paid even the federally mandated minimum wage to professionals who claim that they were not compensated according to a written or oral agreement between them and the business for which they worked. At the end of the day, everyone – from the lowest paid to the most highly compensated individuals – want a fair wage for the work they have done.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiff was a man who had an unpaid clerking position with the defendant law firm while he was attending law school. After obtaining his license, the plaintiff accepted a job as a “contract associate” with the firm. Via an employment agreement (in the form of a letter), the law firm agreed to compensate the plaintiff for his services by paying him a part of the fee earned by the firm upon the resolution of cases in which he was involved. The exact amount of compensation was not specified but was to be determined on a case by case basis.

Federal Court Rules Against Georgia Worker on Breach of Contract Claim Regarding Pay

April 30, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are many different issues that can arise in an Atlanta employment law dispute. In addition to matters like discrimination and harassment, an employee may seek legal redress for unpaid or underpaid wages.

Sometimes, such a claim is pursued under state or federal wage-and-hours laws, but this is not always the case.

Depending upon the circumstances, a breach of contract action may provide a viable remedy for an employee who believes that he or she has not received the pay that he or she was rightly due.

Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to County in Georgia Sheriff Department Employees’ FLSA and Breach of Contract Suit

April 16, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, most employees are entitled to a minimum wage, as well as certain overtime pay benefits. An employee who believes that his or her employer has acted wrongfully under the Act should consult an attorney about the possibility of filing an Atlanta wage and hour lawsuit.

In such a suit, the plaintiff has the burden of proof, meaning that he or she must be able to convince the court of his or her entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence.

If he or she is unable to do so, it is likely that the case will be dismissed on summary judgment or at trial.

Employees’ Suit for Alleged Illegal Payday Loan Scheme Is Dismissed on Summary Judgment by Federal Court in Georgia

March 26, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Under state and federal law, there are several different types of claims that may arise in an Atlanta wage and hour violation case, including allegations of unpaid overtime, unpaid hours, minimum wage violations, and/or misclassifications. It is important to contact an attorney promptly if you believe that your employer has violated these or other employment-related laws.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in a recent case were current or former employees of a certain manufacturer of portable storage buildings in Swainsboro, Georgia. They filed suit against the defendants, the manufacturer and its chief executive officer, in 2017, asserting a putative class action arising from what the plaintiffs characterized as an “illegal payday lending scheme within the manufacturing facility.” (Certification as a class action was later denied.)

Federal Appeals Court Hearing Georgia Wage and Hour Lawsuit Says Business Owner Was Protected From Personal Liability Through LLC

February 27, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Atlanta employment law case can be complicated by several factors – including the closing of a business or the legal status of a business’s owners. In a recent federal case, the business in question had been established through a rather complex series of agreements between various parties.

When the dust finally settled, a federal appeals court was called upon to determine whether one particular business owner could be held personally liable for the plaintiffs’ employment law claims, even though he was not the “bad actor” whose actions led to the lawsuit.

Facts of the Case

In a recent (unreported) federal appellate case, the plaintiffs were the former general manager and executive chef of an Atlanta restaurant that closed its doors after the plaintiffs and others had filed a number of claims against its owners, including the one defendant (a local celebrity/promoter who conducted business through a limited liability company) who remained in the case when it reached the court of appeals. The plaintiffs’ claims included allegations of breach of contract, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages, and fraud.

Federal Court Holds that Georgia Entertainment Worker is an “Employee” Under FSLA

January 16, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

There are several different issues that may arise in a Georgia wage and hour case. One of these issues is the question of whether a worker has been properly classified as an employee or as an independent contractor.

This is an important distinction because independent contractors are usually exempt from the requirements of federal law concerning matters like minimum wage and overtime.

Facts

The plaintiff in a recent case was a dancer who alleged that the defendant entertainment establishment owners had failed to pay her in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), codified at U.S.C. § 201 et seq. According to the plaintiff, the defendants misclassified her as an “independent contractor” when she was, in fact, an employee who was entitled to receive minimum wage under FLSA.

Federal Court in Georgia Certifies FSLA Case So That More Potential Plaintiffs Can Opt In

January 2, 2019 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Under federal law, there are certain rules and regulations that govern the manner in which employees are paid. While some workers are exempt from these provisions, most are included.

Those whose employers have acted in violation of these or other laws concerning fair payment of wages may be able to recover money damages through an Atlanta wage and hour lawsuit. Because there is a limited time for taking legal action in such a situation, it is important to speak to a lawyer promptly if you think you have a potential wage and hour law case.

Facts of the Case

In a recent case, the plaintiffs were drivers and laborers employed by the defendant disposal services company. In a complaint filed in federal court, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had either underpaid them or had failed to pay them for overtime hours in violation of § 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant’s practices also affected other similarly situated workers employed. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, although their pay stubs purported to reflect both regular and overtime rates, the plaintiffs contended that these rates were intentionally manipulated by the defendant to make it appear that the plaintiffs were receiving overtime pay when, in fact, they were not.