Atlanta Employment Attorneys Blog
The Fair Labor Standards Act established a broad right for workers to receive a minimum wage and overtime pay. The statute also has numerous exemptions to the right to overtime pay. While workers and employers are probably familiar with exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, computer, and outside sales employees, those are not the only ones. Identifying and understanding the breadth of all exemptions can be crucial to avoiding a FLSA violation. Talk to an experienced Atlanta wage and hour lawyer if you have any questions about FLSA exemptions or exempt versus nonexempt classifications.
In addition to the exemptions listed above, which Congress outlined in Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, further exemptions exist under Section 13(b)(1). Section 13(b)(1) exemptions pertain only to overtime compensation, whereas Section 13(a)(1) exemptions extend to overtime and minimum wage requirements. Examples of Section 13(b)(1) exemptions include individuals who work in the trucking, rail, and air carrier industries.
A recent unpaid overtime dispute from the federal courts focused on those Section 13(b)(1) exemptions. The employer was an entity that sold, delivered, and installed “screwpiles used in the construction of foundations.” The employees were a pair of welders. In addition to welding, welders were also responsible for “loading trailers, securing loads for transport, and inspecting trucks for safety items such as lights, tires, brakes, and horns.”
The employer’s defense to the welders’ unpaid overtime complaint was straightforward: the welders were exempt under Section 13(b)(1) and not entitled to receive time-and-a-half overtime compensation.
In siding with the employer, the appeals court made two key points: one regarding corporate structures and the other related to job duties.
On the first front, the court rejected the welders’ attempt to use the employer’s corporate structures as the basis for overcoming the exemption. In this case, the motor carrier was a Colorado corporation, while the welders officially worked for a Colorado limited liability company (LLC). The court said that this only mattered when the corporate structures were “separate and distinct from” one another.
The welders’ employer, by contrast, was clearly a subordinate of the motor carrier. The corporation and the LLC shared a common management structure, and all management employees worked for the corporation. The corporation interviewed, hired, and fired the LLC’s employees, as well as setting their schedules and pay rates. Because the corporation and the LLC were the welders’ joint employers and the corporation was a qualifying motor carrier, the welders’ argument failed.
‘No Specific, Minimum Frequency’
The welders’ second argument, which contended that they performed exemption-qualifying tasks too infrequently to make the exemption applicable, also did not persuade the court. In ruling for the employer, the court highlighted that “there is no specific, minimum frequency with which an employee must engage” in qualifying work to trigger the application of the exemption. In the welders’ situation, they admitted that they “regularly” loaded trailers, secured loads, and checked trucks for safety issues. The welders, the court said, “had continuing, safety-affecting duties and could be called upon at any time to perform those tasks.” That was enough to trigger the exemption.
Even though the men held the job title of “welder” and perhaps primarily did welding tasks, their employer correctly recognized that the other work they did made the motor private carrier exemption applicable to them. If you need advice and answers about the FLSA’s overtime obligations and FLSA overtime exemptions, reach out to the Atlanta wage-and-hour attorneys at the law firm of Parks, Chesin & Walbert. Our team has detailed experience in the full range of FLSA exemption and classification issues. Contact us through this website or at 404-873-8048 to schedule a consultation today.