USDOL announced that, effective July 1, it will not seek liquidated damages in FLSA investigations as a matter of course.
The USDOL recently announced that it will continue its Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, and wasted no time beginning its efforts to further educate employers and attorneys about the benefits of the program.
In an opinion illustrating the tangled web we weave when de-facto legislation takes place outside of Congress, the Ninth Circuit in Marsh v. J. Alexander's gave deference to the USDOL's sub-regulatory "20% Rule", restricting an FLSA tipped employee's activities, essentially on the basis that the agency's position was previously available online and that employers were therefore presumed to have notice of its potential effect.
USDOL's recent Field Assistance Bulletin outlines the factors to be considered when the agency is evaluating independent contractor status.
After 80 years with the USDOL, the FLSA needs a shakeup. The problem is that, even as we anxiously await proposed regulations from the current agency and contemplate how things might be under a potential new one, it’s the 80-year-old law that needs change, and not just because it is outdated.
Changes from USDOL have been numerous and fast paced. Take a second to look back on what has already happened in the federal wage and hour world in 2018, and what is yet to come.
USDOL's Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) pilot program is meant to provide employers with the framework to proactively resolve potential FLSA claims. Nonetheless, on the whole, it seems that the benefits and risks are not particularly distinguishable from an investigation.
Ringing in 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor is increasing the maximum civil money penalties available for certain FLSA violations.
Legislation pending in the House and the Senate would radically transform federal wage-hour requirements and enforcement.
Management's signing a U.S. Wage and Hour Division "Summary of Unpaid Wages" on-the-spot might complicate later challenges to the factual assumptions, reasoning, and/or legal conclusions underlying the back-wages assessed.