labor lawAdivision of labor law center

The California Labor Agency recently issued an opinion allowing employers to reduce an exempt employee’s salary and hours worked, at the same time, without endangering the worker’s status as a salaried exempt employee.

In the example used, the state labor agency permitted an employer faced with economic difficulties to reduce the work schedule of exempt employees from five days to four days. The state DLSE or Department of Labor Standards Enforcement ruled in a recent opinion letter that simultaneously reducing the employee’s salary by 20%  “did not violate the ‘salary basis’ for the workers’ overtime exemption under the state Labor code and wage orders” as long as the employer’s action is a temporary measure.

This is a radical change, since the DLSE took the opposite position in 2002. In an opinion letter issued in that year, the California agency ruled that the employer could reduce an employee’s salary. However, if the employee’s work hours were also reduced, that change the employee from exempt to non-exempt status.

This is a primary concern for California employers, since non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime under state law. California has the strictest (more…)

The IRS  and U.S. Department of Labor are cracking down on employers who try to avoid employment taxes by misclassifying employees as independent contractors.

Under IRS regulations, an independent contractor is a self-employed small business person. The employer does not have to pay FICA or unemployment taxes on independent contractors, under federal law. State laws requiring workers’ comp insurance do not apply to independent contractors. Employers are also not required to withhold federal income taxes for independent contractors.

The minimum wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA, the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, do not apply to independent contractors.

All of these factors make hiring independent contractors very attractive to employers. However, both the IRS and the U.S. Department of Labor have stepped up enforcement actions against employers who misrepresent workers as independent contractors, when in fact they are employees.

To further complicate the issue, there is no one standard or group of standards to determine if a worker is an independent contractor, rather than an employee. The IRS has traditionally used the 20-factor test, particularly to determine if workers’ compensation coverage is required.

The IRS 20-factor test basically determines how much control the employer exercises over the worker. In general, a high level of control results in employee status, rather than independent contractor status. When an employer controls when, where or how the work is performed, that usually constitutes employee status.

Other agencies use (more…)

Employers who neglect to pay court-ordered restitution face hefty fines and penalties under both California and federal law.

In a recent California case involving Southern California Cleaning Service, a federal judge ordered the company to pay an additional penalty of $2,400 per day, for each day that the payment is delayed.

Even worse, the court also found the two owners of the company in contempt, and ordered them each to pay an additional $200 per day penalty. Further violations could result in them being jailed for contempt of court.

Both the fines will continue on a daily basis until the employees are paid in full.

In addition, the company was ordered to pay $227,701 in interest – 4.4% — on unpaid back wages of almost $3.5 million, plus $1 million in liquidated damages to workers.

The company’s troubles began in 2007 when the U.S. Department of Labor won a lawsuit against the southern California employer.

The judge in that case determined that Southern California Maid Services and Carpet Cleaning had improperly classified nearly every employee (more…)

Employers may need to implement new payroll procedures due to a recent 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on overtime.

In a Nebraska lawsuit against Famous Dave’s restaurant chain, the appeal court upheld the lower court ruling that the employer should have known that employees were working a more than one Famous Dave’s location.

The restaurant chain is based in Minnesota and has both franchise and company-owened locations throughout the Midwest.

The court found that most Omaha restaurants had policies prohibiting employees from working at more than one location. When an employee had permission to work at several locations, the employer had a system in place to combine the employees hours to calculate overtime.

However, Famous Dave’s  had no policy prohibiting employees from working at more than one location. A number of employees did work at two or more locations. Their hours were not combined to calculate overtime, (more…)

One of the hottest HR topics right now is salary reductions for exempt employees. Many employers are faced with a choice of laying off employees, or using other tactics to reduce payroll.

When employers reduce exempt employees’ salaries, they must take certain precautions to avoid breaking the law.

One option to reduce payroll is to reduce hours for hourly employees. By having every hourly employee work 36 hours per week rather than 40 hours per week, an employer can reduce his or her payroll expenses by 10%. (In many cases, however, the cost of benefits remains constant.)

However, that solution won’t work for salaried exempt employees. Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, employers must pay an exempt employee his or her full weekly wage, regardless of how many or how few hours the employee works per week. If the exempt employee works 60 hours per week, he or she is not entitled to overtime. However, if the exempt employee works 20 or 30 hours per week, he or she must still be paid the full weekly salary.

This raises a question for employers. Is there any legal way to reduce an exempt employee’s salary?  (more…)