In Bartels v. Birmingham, 332 U.S. 126, 67 S. Ct. 1547 (1947), the Supreme Court held that members of musical bands were employees of the bands’ leaders, rather than of the operators of the dance halls where the bands played, within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The Court emphasized that, inter alia, the band leader organized and trained the band, that the leader’s musical skill determined the success or failure of the band, and the relationship between the leader and the band members was permanent. The case is important because, inter alia, it applied an “economic reality” test, usi ..read more

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to certain categories of employees. However, the law contains several exceptions or “exemptions” from these requirements. This post will focus on the exemption for employees of seasonal amusement or recreational establishments under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(3). The Department of Labor Fact Sheet #18 is an excellent resource for information about this exemption. Some DOL implementing regulations relevant to the seasonal amusement or recreational establishment exemption are generally located at 29 C ..read more

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to certain categories of employees. However, the law contains several exceptions or “exemptions” from these requirements, most of which turn on a combination of the employees’ pay and the nature of their job duties. For example, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an “exemption” from both minimum wage and overtime pay for certain categories of so-called “white collar” employees — namely, employees working as bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or outside s ..read more

In Citicorp Indus. Credit, Inc. v. Brock, 483 U.S. 27, 107 S. Ct. 2694 (1987) the Supreme Court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s prohibition on selling “hot goods” applies to secured creditors who acquire the goods pursuant to a security agreement, even when the creditor itself did not engage in an FLSA violation. Statutory Background – The FLSA “Hot Goods” Provision Relevant to the decision in Citicorp, Section 215(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides that it is unlawful for “any person” (1) to transport, offer for transportation, ship, del ..read more

In Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 143 S.Ct. 2279 (2023), the Supreme Court held that for an employer to deny a religious accommodation for an employee as an undue hardship under Title VII, the employer must show that granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs for its particular business. The case is important because it moved away from prior cases allowing employers to deny accommodations that imposed more than a “de minimus” or minimal cost on the employer, thereby strengthening the rights of employees to religious accommodations.  Statutory and Regulatory ..read more

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to certain categories of employees. These requirements involve a determination as to the number of hours an employee “works” each workweek. As explained below, the FLSA generally requires that compensable working time include any time that an employee is suffered or permitted to work. When an employee is traveling, a question often arises as to whether that time is considered compensable working time under the FLSA. FLSA regulations provide that, generally speaking, time spent on or ..read more

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to certain categories of employees. However, the law contains several exceptions or “exemptions” from these requirements, most of which turn on a combination of the employees’ pay and the nature of their job duties. For example, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an “exemption” from both minimum wage and overtime pay for certain categories of so-called “white collar” employees — namely, employees working as bona fide executive, administrative, professional, or outside s ..read more

In Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008), the Fourth Circuit held that an employee could be protected by the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act when a former employer responded to the employee’s overtime lawsuit by filing a counterclaim against the employee without a reasonable basis in fact or law. The case is important because, inter alia, it shows that (1) an employee does not have to currently employed to be protected by the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, and (2) an unreasonable counterclaim can constitute an actionable adverse action withi ..read more

In United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), the Supreme Court applied a multi-factor test for determining whether workers were independent contractors or employees. The case is important because, inter alia, these “Silk factors” came to be applied in cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act to determine whether the economic realities show that workers are “employees” for purposes of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, or “independent contractors” not protected by these requirements.  Statutory and Regulatory Background The FLSA requires covered employ ..read more

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to certain categories of employees. These requirements involve a determination as to the employee’s regular or overtime hourly rate of pay. As explained below, FLSA regulations provide that, generally speaking, fees, expenses or other charges that the employer requires the employee to pay directly or indirectly to the employer or to another person for the employer’s benefit should be deducted from the employee’s wages when determining whether the employer has met the FLSA’s minimum ..read more