Podcasts about fair labor standards act flsa

Update your records and audit your payroll; the Wage and Hour Division has published new information concerning the meaning of "employment relationship" and the significance of that determination in applying provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In this episode, Pandy shares the details of the most recent announcement that Wage and Hour is returning to the regulations of 2008 published in Fact Sheet #13 dated May 1, 2025 as they evaluate the 2024 guidance.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to compensate non-exempt employees at least the minimum wage for each hour worked and pay them overtime (at 1.5 times the employee's regular rate of pay) whenever they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. The amount employees should receive in pay cannot be determined accurately without knowing the number of hours worked. This can be especially tricky when the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis or has waiting time or on-call time during the workweek. To help you navigate these situations, listen in as we cover: [01:00] Defining a piece-rate employee [02:56] Minimum wage rules for piece-rate employees [03:49] Tracking hours for piece-rate employees [04:24] Calculating overtime for piece-rate employees [05:16] Waiting time [07:20] On-call time This content is based on generally accepted HR practices, is advisory in nature, and does not constitute legal advice or other professional services. ADP does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the content. Employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel for advice regarding their organization's compliance with applicable laws. This content is current as of the published date.  Copyright © 2025 ADP, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The ADP logo, ADP, RUN Powered by ADP, and HR{preneur} are registered trademarks of ADP, Inc. and its affiliates. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.  Privacy at ADP

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!The scales of workplace justice have just shifted. In a unanimous decision that has sent ripples through labor law circles, the Supreme Court has lowered the standard of proof employers need to demonstrate when classifying workers as exempt from overtime pay.At the heart of this groundbreaking case lies EMD Sales, a food distributor whose sales representatives spent long 60-hour weeks stocking shelves, managing inventory, and processing orders at grocery stores across the Washington DC area. These employees, paid only on commission, sued for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). EMD claimed they were "outside salesmen" – exempt from overtime requirements – but did their day-to-day responsibilities actually constitute "making sales"? The answer depended heavily on whether they were working at chain stores with pre-established corporate agreements or at independent shops where they had more sales autonomy.The Supreme Court didn't rule on whether these particular workers deserved overtime. Instead, they focused on a crucial procedural question: what level of proof should employers need to show when claiming a worker is exempt? Previously, in the Fourth Circuit, employers needed to meet a high "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Now, the Court has established nationwide that only a "preponderance of evidence" – essentially just over 50% likelihood – is required. This seemingly technical change could significantly impact millions of workers' overtime eligibility and shift the power balance in workplace disputes across America.The next time you're wondering whether your job qualifies for overtime protection, remember this watershed case. Understanding your rights has never been more important as the legal landscape evolves. Subscribe to our podcast for more deep dives into the court decisions that directly impact your workplace rights and compensation. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

This Day in Legal History: Federal Minimum Wage IncreaseOn this day in legal history, April 1, 1991, the federal minimum wage in the United States increased to $4.25 per hour. This followed an earlier increase on April 1, 1990, when the wage rose from $3.35 to $3.80 per hour. These back-to-back adjustments marked the first changes to the federal minimum wage since 1981, when it had been set at $3.35 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The 1990 and 1991 hikes were part of a broader legislative effort to address inflation and stagnating wages for low-income workers, especially in service industries.The wage increase was included in the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1989, signed into law by President George H. W. Bush. The law aimed to gradually raise wages while minimizing economic disruption for employers. Despite concerns from some business groups, the phased approach allowed companies time to adjust. Labor advocates, meanwhile, argued the increase was still insufficient for workers to meet basic living expenses, particularly in urban areas with high costs of living.The minimum wage has long been a point of contention in U.S. labor policy, seen alternately as a lifeline for workers or a constraint on small businesses. While federal adjustments have been relatively infrequent, many states and municipalities have set higher local minimum wages. As of this writing, the last federal minimum wage increase occurred on July 24, 2009, when it rose to $7.25 per hour—where it remains today. This stagnation has reignited debates over the role of the federal government in ensuring a living wage. The April 1, 1991 increase remains a reminder of the complex balancing act between economic policy, labor rights, and legislative compromise.The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by the Catholic Charities Bureau, a nonprofit affiliated with the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin, seeking an exemption from the state's unemployment insurance tax. The group, along with four of its subsidiaries, argued that being denied the exemption violates their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and church autonomy. While federal and state laws do allow religious organizations to opt out of unemployment insurance if they are “operated primarily for religious purposes,” Wisconsin determined the group's services were primarily secular and charitable. The organizations involved provide support such as job training and care services for people with disabilities but do not require staff or clients to be religious.During arguments, both conservative and liberal justices questioned whether Wisconsin's approach unfairly favored some religious organizations over others. Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch expressed concerns about the state seemingly picking winners among religious groups. Catholic Charities contends their mission is rooted in faith, even if their services don't explicitly promote religious doctrine. Wisconsin previously granted a similar exemption to one of their subsidiaries, prompting the current challenge.Critics, including me, warn that granting the exemption could allow large religiously affiliated organizations, including major hospital systems, to bypass various regulations and potentially strip employees of benefits like unemployment insurance. A ruling is expected by the end of June. The Court is also set to hear another major case involving Catholic interests on April 30, regarding the proposed creation of a taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma.US Supreme Court leans toward Catholic group's bid for Wisconsin unemployment tax exemption | ReutersYesterday, Nokia and Amazon announced they had resolved an international legal battle over alleged patent infringement related to video streaming and cloud computing technologies. The dispute centered on Nokia's claims that Amazon improperly used its patented technology to power high-quality video on platforms like Prime Video and Twitch. Nokia had filed lawsuits in several jurisdictions, including the U.S., Germany, the UK, India, and the European Unified Patent Court.Amazon, in turn, countersued in Delaware, accusing Nokia of infringing its cloud computing patents related to Amazon Web Services (AWS), including infrastructure and security technologies. A German court had previously ruled in Nokia's favor, finding that Amazon had used its technology without proper licensing, though Amazon stated the decision wouldn't affect its Prime Video users in Germany.The companies have now signed a multi-year patent agreement, resolving all pending litigation under confidential terms. The agreement brings an end to multiple lawsuits and suggests ongoing cooperation between the two tech giants moving forward.Amazon, Nokia settle international patent dispute | ReutersThe National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing 150,000 federal employees, filed a lawsuit aiming to stop President Donald Trump from eliminating collective bargaining rights for a large segment of the federal workforce. The suit, filed in Washington, D.C. federal court, challenges an executive order Trump issued the previous week that exempted over a dozen federal agencies from having to negotiate with employee unions. The NTEU argues that the order violates federal labor laws and the U.S. Constitution.Trump's order was followed by legal action from eight federal agencies against multiple union affiliates, attempting to invalidate existing contracts. The administration claims the move is necessary for national security and to streamline agency operations, including the ability to discipline or terminate employees more easily, particularly amid budget cuts.The NTEU counters that the national security rationale is a pretext, accusing Trump of using the order to pursue political goals and retaliate against unions that have opposed his policies. The union seeks a court ruling to block the order and prevent agencies from enforcing it, warning that the action would severely undermine federal workers' rights and job protections.Union sues to block Trump from ending collective bargaining for many federal workers | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at a well-meaning but flawed proposal in New York: a so-called “noise tax” aimed at reducing helicopter sound pollution. The bill would charge $50 per seat or $200 per flight for aircraft that exceed a fixed noise threshold, but it doesn't actually tax sound. Instead, it taxes occupancy—a fundamental mismatch if the goal is to reduce the auditory burden on residents.If noise is the harm, we should tax noise directly. A static decibel cutoff misses how sound actually impacts people—context matters. A helicopter flying over the harbor at noon is not the same as one hovering over a quiet park at 6 a.m., but under this bill, both would be taxed identically if they're equally loud. Worse, there's no incentive to alter flight paths or schedules to reduce disruption, nor any reward for operators who try to minimize their noise without hitting the “quiet” threshold.A well-designed externality tax should reflect actual social harm and promote behavior that reduces it. Congestion pricing in New York does this well by varying fees based on time and place. France's noise tax on planes is another good example—it charges more for louder aircraft flying at more sensitive times. New York's bill, by contrast, is more of a symbolic luxury tax that may make air travel slightly pricier but won't make the skies meaningfully quieter.If the goal is truly to reduce noise, the city needs to tax decibels—not passengers.New York's helicopter noise tax misses the target This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence? The case was decided on January 15, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The default standard of proof in American civil litigation is preponderance of the evidence, and courts only deviate from this standard in three specific circumstances: when a statute explicitly requires a heightened standard, when the Constitution requires it, or in certain rare cases where the government seeks unusual coercive action against an individual (like revoking citizenship). None of these exceptions applies to FLSA exemption cases. The FLSA itself is silent on the standard of proof, which typically means Congress intended the default preponderance standard to apply. The case does not implicate constitutional rights, and it does not involve unusual government coercion; instead, it is akin to Title VII employment discrimination cases where the Court has consistently applied the preponderance standard. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, clarifying that courts apply the default “preponderance” rule unless Congress alters it or the Constitution forbids it. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Join Chase Stoecker and Courtney Joiner, Members of McGlinchey's Labor and Employment Practice Group, as they discuss how a new administration could impact overtime laws and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They explore changes to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) salary thresholds, legal challenges to DEI programs, and strategies for employers to adapt to potential regulatory shifts.

This session provides a comprehensive understanding of executive pay structures, legal frameworks, and employee benefits management. It emphasizes compliance with regulations and the strategic use of compensation and benefits to attract and retain talent. Key Topics Covered Executive Compensation: Includes base salary, stock options, bonuses, and severance packages (e.g., golden parachutes, golden handcuffs). Employment Regulations: Key laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Equal Pay Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Employee Benefits: Coverage of COBRA, HIPAA, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA), focusing on health insurance and retirement plans. Compensation Concepts: Differentiating exempt vs. non-exempt employees, permissible wage differentials, and job classifications. Motivational Incentives: Tools like discretionary and non-discretionary bonuses, gainsharing plans, and Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). This session equips HR professionals with critical knowledge to manage compliance, design effective benefit programs, and optimize compensation strategies for organizational success.

Join host Dan Schwartz and Sarah Westby, partners at Shipman & Goodwin, as they delve into the latest wage and hour regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This episode explores the implications of a federal court ruling that struck down recent DOL salary threshold increases, what it means for employers, and how businesses can navigate compliance amidst evolving rules. Discover practical insights and strategies to manage workforce morale, stay aligned with state and federal laws, and anticipate future regulatory changes.

Last week, the US elected its 47th president. As I was sifting through the reactions of family, friends, and coworkers online, feelings of excitement and feelings of sadness were all over the place, and it was a lot to think about. But the thing I kept coming back to was the mission of I Hate It Here and the ways that elections affect us all! So today, we're taking a stroll down HR memory lane, digging into the laws that flipped the script on how we work. From the Fair Labor Standards Act to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, we're exploring the major pieces of legislation that shaped HR as we know it. Now, Working Not Working is helping to keep that talent with NTRNL— the new platform that unlocks employee passions and ignites productivity. So you can see your people as they see themselves: as humans, not headcount. Visit seeyourpeople.com to learn more or book a demo. 00:01:00 - The Misson of I Hate It Here 00:01:50 - The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 00:03:55 - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 00:06:00 - The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 00:08:05 - The Employee of Income Retirement Security Act (ERISA) 00:10:04 - The Americans With Disability Act 00:11:04 - The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 00:13:17 - The Affordable Care Act 00:15:05 - The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 00:17:40 - The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act And if you love I Hate It Here, sign up to Hebba's newsletter! It's for jaded, overworked, and emotionally burnt-out HR/People Operations professionals needing a little inspiration. https://workweek.com/discover-newsletters/i-hate-it-here-newsletter/   And if you love the podcast, be sure to check out https://www.youtube.com/@ihateit-here for even more exclusive insider content! Follow Hebba:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ihateit-here/videos LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/hebba-youssef Twitter: https://twitter.com/hebbamyoussef

This Day in Legal History: New York Grants Women Right to VoteOn November 6, 1917, New York became one of the first eastern states to grant women the right to vote, a pivotal victory for the suffrage movement in the United States. The state's voters approved a constitutional amendment that extended suffrage to women, marking a significant shift in public opinion and advancing the national push for equal voting rights. New York was the most populous state to enact such a measure, lending critical momentum to the cause and demonstrating that widespread support for women's suffrage was achievable in even the largest urban areas.This victory was the result of decades of persistent activism and organizing by leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt, who spearheaded the Empire State Campaign Committee, and countless local suffragists who canvassed tirelessly for public support. Women in New York had actively campaigned, held rallies, and built coalitions, especially focusing on mobilizing working-class women and men. The successful vote was seen as a clear mandate for gender equality and significantly influenced other states and Congress.New York's decision to enfranchise women not only energized the movement but also helped propel the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, which granted voting rights to women nationwide. This milestone in New York underscored the growing acknowledgment of women's role in public and political life, laying groundwork for further social and political reforms across the country.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case concerning whether a heightened standard of proof is necessary for employers claiming that workers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Currently, there is a split among federal circuits on this issue, with the Fourth Circuit requiring a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, while other circuits apply the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which means the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies. The case has significant implications for both workers' rights and business costs.Representing E.M.D. Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt argued that the default civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, should apply to FLSA cases, as imposing a stricter standard would burden employers and potentially lead to layoffs. Conversely, Lauren Bateman, representing employees and supported by Public Citizen, contended that because FLSA regulations protect critical worker health, safety, and economic welfare, a higher standard is warranted to ensure these protections are meaningful.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored that the FLSA aims not only to provide fair pay but also to ensure a safe workplace and expand employment, suggesting the importance of potentially adopting a stricter standard. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about why the FLSA should receive special treatment over other laws that also protect essential rights, such as those addressing discrimination.The case attracted varied views on the potential broader impacts of raising the standard of proof. Some justices, like Samuel Alito, questioned how the court would measure the relative importance of rights across federal laws. The Justice Department, represented by Aimee Brown, supported the employer's position, noting that Congress enacts many laws with public benefits, yet courts rarely apply a heightened standard of proof in such cases.The Supreme Court's eventual decision could standardize how proof requirements are applied in overtime cases and influence both worker protections and business practices across the country.US Supreme Court Leans Toward Business in Overtime Dispute (1)A new lawsuit accuses Pfizer Inc. of failing to warn patients that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, could increase the risk of brain tumors. Plaintiff Taylor Devorak filed the complaint in California, alleging that Pfizer and other manufacturers had a duty to research and disclose potential links between Depo-Provera, as well as similar progesterone-based drugs, and intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and misrepresentation.Devorak's case follows similar lawsuits filed recently in California and Indiana. Her complaint notes that although the drug has been FDA-approved for over 30 years and widely used, Pfizer has not updated the U.S. labeling to reflect these risks, even as health authorities in the EU and UK now include warnings about meningioma for such medications. A 2024 study published in the *British Medical Journal* found a substantial increase in risk for brain tumors with prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.In response, Pfizer asserts that Depo-Provera has been a safe option for millions and plans to “vigorously defend” against the claims. The case has brought renewed attention to safety and disclosure practices in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly around long-established medications.Pfizer Accused of Hiding Contraceptive's Brain Tumor Link (1)Following Donald Trump's recent election as U.S. president, the criminal cases against him are likely to be halted for the duration of his term. Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, had four active prosecutions, including charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, a hush-money payment linked to Stormy Daniels, and unlawful retention of classified documents. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the cases as politically motivated, has stated he would immediately dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith, responsible for the federal prosecutions on election interference and document retention.While Trump can halt federal cases, he has less control over state cases, such as the New York hush-money and Georgia election interference cases. However, his presidency could still effectively delay or complicate these proceedings. Legal experts expect delays in his New York sentencing, which had already been postponed, citing potential presidential immunity arguments.In Georgia, Trump's lawyers are working to pause proceedings under the argument that a sitting president should not face criminal prosecution. Additionally, his team has challenged Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's involvement, aiming to disqualify her based on alleged misconduct. Ultimately, experts believe Trump's presidency will prevent the state-level cases from moving forward until his term concludes.Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Facebook's effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who claim the company misled investors about the misuse of user data. The lawsuit, initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018, argues that Facebook violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose the 2015 Cambridge Analytica data breach, which affected over 30 million users and contributed to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Shareholders allege that Facebook presented data privacy risks as hypothetical even though the breach had already occurred.Facebook contends that it was not legally required to disclose the prior breach and that reasonable investors would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit Court revived it, noting that Facebook's statements misrepresented an already-realized risk. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could influence the standards for securities fraud cases, making it harder for private parties to pursue claims. This case, along with a similar appeal by Nvidia, could further limit the liability of companies for nondisclosure of past risks. Past Cambridge Analytica fallout has led Facebook to settle related SEC and FTC actions, paying $100 million and $5 billion, respectively.US Supreme Court to hear Facebook bid to escape securities fraud suit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of The Lieb Cast, we dive deep into the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its role in classifying workers as either employees or independent contractors. Using landmark cases like Clincy v. Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., where Atlanta exotic dancers reached a $1.55 million settlement, and a nearly $4.6 million ruling involving Philadelphia's Penthouse Club, we explore the elements used to determine worker classification. These cases expose how much control an employer must exert over a worker's conditions for them to be classified as employees—and how clubs, like these, exploited misclassifications to their advantage.We also tackle the complex topic of sexual harassment in the workplace, triggered by the shocking lawsuit accusing Macy's of covering up a 2008 sexual assault committed by Sean “Diddy” Combs at their Herald Square store. We'll discuss the company's duty to report harassment and how vicarious liability comes into play when business relationships take priority over accountability. This episode is a must-listen for anyone wanting to understand how these issues intersect with corporate responsibility and employee protections.

This Day in Legal History: Brown v. Board StandsOn September 12, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Cooper v. Aaron, reaffirming the authority of federal courts and rejecting Arkansas's attempt to defy the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling. The case arose after Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus and the state legislature openly resisted desegregation, particularly in Little Rock, where African American students were blocked from entering Central High School. Arkansas argued that it was not bound by the Brown decision, claiming state sovereignty over education. The Supreme Court decisively rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that state officials are bound by its rulings.In a powerful opinion, the Court reiterated that its 1954 decision in Brown, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, was "the law of the land." The justices underscored that state defiance of federal court orders violated the Constitution, asserting that "the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution" must be upheld. This decision was critical in enforcing civil rights and strengthening federal power to ensure desegregation, marking a pivotal moment in the fight against state resistance to integration.Three law firms leading litigation against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) over talc-related cancer claims are now clashing in court. Beasley Allen, an Alabama-based firm, has sued the Smith Law Firm and Porter Malouf, alleging they owe more than $1 million in litigation expenses. Beasley Allen also claims that Smith Law, burdened by up to $240 million in debt to outside funders, is pushing clients to accept a $6.5 billion settlement with J&J that Beasley opposes. The settlement deal requires 75% approval from claimants and was initiated as J&J sought bankruptcy protection for its talc-related liabilities. Beasley Allen argues the settlement is unfair and insufficient for clients, while Smith Law supports it. Smith Law denies the allegations, calling Beasley Allen's lawsuit "baseless." Beasley Allen contends that Smith's financial issues have caused the firm to undermine their joint litigation agreement, which began in 2014. The dispute centers on alleged unpaid expenses and control over client decisions. Additionally, Beasley Allen is involved in a separate legal battle accusing J&J of misusing the bankruptcy process.J&J Talc Suit Law Firms Clash Over $6.5 Billion Settlement (2)J&J's proposed talc settlement sparks lawsuit between plaintiffs' firms | ReutersThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld the Labor Department's authority to use salary levels in determining overtime pay exemptions, supporting a rule issued under the Trump administration and providing a legal boost for a similar rule introduced by the Biden administration. The ruling involved a 2019 regulation that mandates salaried workers earning less than $35,568 annually to receive overtime pay, which was challenged by Robert Mayfield, a business owner from Texas. Mayfield argued that overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) should be based solely on job duties, not salary levels. However, the court found that the Department of Labor (DOL) has long held the authority to set salary thresholds, with guidance from Congress. This decision is expected to bolster the Biden administration's 2024 overtime rule, which raises the salary threshold to $58,656 and aims to expand overtime protections to 4 million workers. Mayfield's legal challenge partly aimed to prevent the Biden rule from taking effect, but courts have consistently sided with the DOL. This ruling is seen as a win for the Biden administration in its effort to expand worker protections.Fifth Circuit Upholds Labor Department's Overtime Authority (2)A Philadelphia jury ruled in favor of Bayer's Monsanto in a lawsuit claiming that the company's Roundup weed killer causes cancer. This marks a win for Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion and has since faced numerous lawsuits alleging Roundup's cancer risks. The case involved product liability claims, but the jury sided with Monsanto, continuing Bayer's efforts to defend against the wave of litigation surrounding Roundup. Despite many legal challenges, this verdict adds to a series of mixed outcomes for Bayer in Roundup-related cases.Jury rules in favor of Bayer's Monsanto in Philadelphia trial over Roundup | ReutersA federal indictment has charged Michael Smith with using bots to artificially inflate streaming numbers for AI-generated music, earning over $10 million in royalties. Smith's scheme, which spanned seven years, involved creating thousands of fake email accounts to stream his AI-generated tracks on platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. AI allowed Smith to scale the operation by generating vast amounts of content, evading detection for years. The indictment marks the first criminal case involving artificially inflated music streams, signaling the Department of Justice's increasing focus on streaming fraud. Despite some platforms identifying suspicious activity early on, Smith continued his scheme by using bots to manipulate stream counts. The indictment highlights the vulnerability of streaming platforms to fraud, as well as the potential impact on the music industry's revenue model. The DOJ charged Smith with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. This case emphasizes the need for stronger fraud-prevention measures as AI technology becomes more integrated into content creation.AI Music Fraud Indictment Brings Scrutiny to Streaming Inflation This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a Text Message.NOTE: Rudy is a Pool Guy, Dammit! Not a labor law attorney or expert... That said - In this conversation, Rudy Stankowitz discusses the topic of how to pay swimming pool technicians. He explores the different methods of payment, including per pool, hourly, and piecework pay. Rudy explains the intricacies of piecework compensation and the guidelines set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). He emphasizes the importance of ensuring compliance with federal and state laws, calculating regular and overtime pay, and tracking hours worked. Rudy also highlights the advantages and challenges of implementing a piecework pay system and provides tips for setting fair rates and maintaining transparency with employees.keywordsswimming pool technicians, pay methods, per pool pay, hourly pay, piecework pay, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, compliance, regular rate of pay, overtime pay, advantages, challenges, setting fair rates, transparencytakeawaysThere are different methods of paying swimming pool technicians, including per pool, hourly, and piecework pay.Piecework pay involves compensating employees based on the number of pools they service rather than the hours they work.Compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is crucial when implementing piecework pay.Calculating the regular rate of pay and overtime pay is necessary to ensure fair compensation.Implementing a piecework pay system can increase productivity and job satisfaction, but challenges such as maintaining quality and variability in pay should be considered.Setting fair rates and maintaining transparency with employees are important for the success of a piecework pay system.titlesCalculating the Regular Rate of Pay and Overtime PayUnd AquaStar Pool ProductsThe Global Leader in Safety, Dependability, & Innovation in Pool Technology.POOL MAGAZINE Pool Magazine is leading up to the minute news source for Swimming Pool News and Pool Features. OuBLUERAY XLThe real mineral purifier! Reduce your pool maintenance costs & efforts by 50%Jack's MagicIf you know Jack's you'd have no stains!RaypakRaypak, leading the evolution of environmental efficiency and sustainability in pool heaters.the 'How to Get Rid of Algae' handbookThe most comprehensive guide on algae prevention and remediation you will ever own. Online Pool ClassesThe difference between you and your competition is what you know!CPO Certification ClassesAttend your CPO class with Rudy Stankowitz!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the Show.Thank you so much for listening! You can find us on social media: Facebook Instagram Tik Tok Email us: talkingpools@gmail.com

Non-exempt, non-exempt salaried and exempt employee classifications are some of the most misunderstood terms when it comes to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unfortunately, misunderstanding these terms and the rules that govern them can result in costly penalties. We'll go over what employers need to know about these classifications and more. Listen in as we cover: [0:52] What are non-exempt employees? [1:42] What are non-exempt salaried employees? [2:25] Are “salaried” and “exempt” the same? [2:57] How to calculate overtime for non-exempt salaried employees [4:04] Keeping accurate time records for non-exempt employees [5:24] Pay requirements for unauthorized overtime [5:56] What are exempt employees? This content is based on generally accepted HR practices, is advisory in nature, and does not constitute legal advice or other professional services. ADP does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of the content. Employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel for advice regarding their organization's compliance with applicable laws. This content is current as of the published date.  Copyright © 2024 ADP, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The ADP logo, ADP, RUN Powered by ADP, and HR{preneur} are registered trademarks of ADP, Inc. and its affiliates. All other marks are the property of their respective owners. Privacy at ADP

"I'll be the judge of that!" Karen discusses the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and common misconceptions regarding employee compensation, specifically regarding meal periods and overtime. She emphasizes the importance of employers correctly classifying employees as exempt or non-exempt, and the potential financial consequences of misclassification. She also clarifies that employers are not required to provide meal periods, but if they do, they must pay employees for that time. Contrary to popular belief, employees are entitled to be compensated for all hours worked during a work week, including on-call time, training, and travel time. The Job Judge also answers the question of whether employees should be required to share a hotel room when traveling for work. The Job Judge Podcast is a podcast for anyone who works. This is not legal advice! Engaging and informative, it's a must-listen/watch for any manager, business owner, HR professional, or anyone who works. Relying on three decades of experience as an employment law attorney and HR Executive, Karen Michael uses real case studies in the news and navigates through the legal landmines and workplace dysfunction that we know is probably happening right now in your organization.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Ready to test your employment law knowledge and uncover critical distinctions in the workplace? Join Mark for a pop quiz to test your knowledge. We promise you'll gain valuable insights into the differences between employees and independent contractors, understand the key protected classes under federal anti-discrimination laws, and grasp the essentials of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). From the nuances of at-will employment to the requirements of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), we cover it all to ensure you're well-versed in these crucial topics.But that's not all. This episode goes further by dissecting the complexities of workplace discrimination and harassment. By distinguishing between disparate treatment and disparate impact, we offer practical advice on handling harassment and discrimination. Learn the importance of internal reporting and the pivotal role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We also stress the need for proactive measures from employers, including training and establishing robust reporting procedures. To wrap things up, we tackle the frustration with ineffective solutions and advocate for stronger actions like filing complaints and public shaming to create a safer work environment. Tune in and stay vigilant! If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

In this episode, we unravel the complexities of the latest revisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the changing dynamics of non-compete agreements. We'll explore the implications for both employers and employees, offering insight on how to adapt to these legislative updates. Our discussion covers best practices for ensuring compliance, the necessity of revisiting existing non-compete clauses, and strategies for effective internal communication about these changes. Tune in for practical insights and actionable tips to help your organization stay ahead of the curve. We discuss these topics…and of course, we talk about cocktails! Guest: Sarah Sawyer, Attorney at Offit Kurman Hosted by Kimberly Prescott, Founder and President of Prescott HR

Donna Sansonetti (Associate Vice President, People and Culture / Division of People, Culture and Belonging) join the podcast to talk about the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) - the history, purpose, and recent changes. Resources mentioned: ⁠U.S. Department of Labor Reach out to us at people@kent.edu or @PeopleCultureKSU across social media! Intro/Outro Music: 'Fate' by Marquice Turner

Watch a lively discussion of recent decisions from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the United States Supreme Court affecting Labor & Employment law. Topics include important updates in discrimination and accommodation laws, procedural standards, affirmative action, Prevailing Wage Act claims, collective bargaining, and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The panel will examine the implications of these high court rulings on employers, employees, and the workplace environment. Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

In this episode of Growth Minded Contractor, hosted by David Reed, we delve into a crucial update regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the changes that have taken place as of March 11th 2024. Tune in as we explore the latest developments, implications, and how they impact businesses and employees alike. Gain valuable insights to ensure compliance and navigate changes effectively in this ever-evolving landscape. Join us for an informative discussion that promises to shed light on essential updates shaping the future of labor standards.

More and more businesses are turning to artificial intelligence (AI) models to perform tasks previously done by humans. However, AI has a tendency to generate false responses, known as "hallucination," which makes it unlikely that AI will completely replace human workers. Despite the use of AI, human workers will still be necessary to supervise and ensure the accuracy and quality of AI outputs. The introduction of AI into the workplace also raises questions about how it affects employees' exemption status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Job duties impacted by the use of AI tools may change employees' eligibility for overtime exemptions, requiring employers to regularly assess and adjust job duties to avoid misclassification claims. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tonyphoang/message

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued a final rule imposing stricter criteria for companies to classify workers as independent contractors. This rule, effective as of March 11, 2024, deviates from the previous administration's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and may result in more lawsuits related to misclassification. These lawsuits, if filed as collective actions under the FLSA, can have significant implications for companies. Listen to learn more about the final rule, how companies may be affected, and steps that companies should consider to ensure that they are complying with the new developments in the law.

This week, we're running down the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) recently released final rule on worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the challenges faced by the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) joint-employer rule, and SpaceX's groundbreaking suit against the NLRB. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw332 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

I'm tackling a crucial topic vital for all small business owners and bosses: wage and hour compliance. Neglecting these matters can lead to costly investigations and legal penalties. But don't worry, we'll explore the complexities of wage and hour laws, from minimum wage to overtime pay. These laws vary by state and locality but we'll discuss the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which outlines minimum wage, overtime pay, and more at the federal level. Now, onto common payroll mistakes. Small businesses often trip up with errors like rounding down work time or paying based on schedules instead of actual hours worked. I'll highlight these pitfalls and how to avoid them. Let's not forget employee classification – a big deal. Misclassification can lead to legal trouble!I'll share tips on researching your state's wage and hour laws and following them diligently. Plus, we'll talk about setting clear policies, using technology, and providing transparent pay stubs.What you'll hear in this episode:[0:05]Wage and hour compliance for business owners[4:05] Wage and hour laws and their complexities[8:45] Labor laws and common mistakes in payroll management[13:20] Wage and hour compliance for businesses[16:45] Wage and hour laws and their impact on businesses[21:55] Wage and hour compliance for businessesListen to Similar Episodes:Back to the Basics: Your Compliance ChecklistHR Essentials for Small Business Owners: Avoiding Mistakes and Promoting GrowthSalaried vs. Hourly Hiring* Connect with me on IG @jackie.koch_* Find more information on my website https://www.jackiekoch.com/

https://youtu.be/fBYO_79ADOwThe U.S. Department of Labor published the issuance of the final rule under The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding Employee or Independent Contractor Classification.

For this episode of The Jason Cavness Experience, I am covering HR Laws you have to follow if your company has 49 or fewer employees CavnessHR Product/Market Fit Validation and Tech Platform Validation To help us with our product market fit and tech platform validation. We are providing Employee Handbooks and HR policies at no cost to companies with 49 or fewer people in the city of Seattle. Email me at jasoncavness@CavnessHR.com if you are interested in this. Go to www.thejasoncavnessexperience.com for the full episode and other episodes of The Jason Cavness Experience on your favorite platforms.  Sponsor  CavnessHR delivers HR companies with 49 or fewer people with our HR platform and by providing you access to your own HRBP. www.CavnessHR.com HR Laws for Small Business with 49 or fewer employees  If you have at least one employee, the following HR laws apply to you.  Drug-Free Workplace Act: The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 only applies to federal grant recipients and federal contractors with a contract for more than $100,000. Drug-Free Workplace Requirements Generally, it requires that covered employers: adopt a drug-free workplace policy; and establish a drug-free awareness program. Employers faced with alcohol and drug use in the workplace often consider employee and applicant drug testing as a way to reduce safety risks and avoid other problems caused by employee drug use. Employers that use drug testing should be aware of the many laws and regulations governing safety, employee privacy, and disability.  The issues involved include both legally mandated and voluntary drug-free workplace programs, discrimination and accommodation, testing, and special requirements for the transportation industry. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA): Prohibits intentional interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications. https://it.ojp.gov/privacyliberty/authorities/statutes/1285 Employee Polygraph Protection Act: Forbids most employers to use lie detectors. Poster required.  https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/polygraph Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA): Regulates benefits through a complex series of rules covering pensions, profit-sharing, stock bonus, and most insurance and other benefit plans. What is ERISA? The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted to ensure that employees receive the pension and other benefits promised by their employers. ERISA also incorporates and is tied to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) provisions designed to encourage employers to provide retirement and other benefits to their employees. Most provisions of ERISA and the IRC are intended to ensure that tax-favored pension plans do not favor the highest-paid employees over rank-and-file employees. ERISA has a complex series of rules that cover pension, profit-sharing, stock bonus, and most “welfare benefit plans,” such as health and life insurance. ERISA has created a single federal standard for employee benefits, and it supersedes almost all state laws that affect employee benefit plans. An employer's responsibilities under ERISA vary depending on the type of plan involved. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/retirement/erisa Military Leave -Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994: Prohibits discrimination against those who serve in the military; mandates military leave of absence.  With the increased use of reserve and National Guard troops in full-time military service, employers must frequently deal with the requirements of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994 when those employees are called to active services and when they return. USERRA governs the leave and reinstatement requirements for military personnel. The law contains specific requirements for protected leave, rules for benefits employees are entitled to during military leave, and the requirements for reinstatement back in the civilian workforce.  https://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/userra_fs.htm Employee Right to Know Laws (Hazardous Chemicals in Workplace): A disclosure rule that requires private sector employers with hazardous substances in their workplace to develop a comprehensive hazard communication program to train and inform employees.  https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3111.html National Labor Relations Act (NLRA): Employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively for wages, hours, and working conditions. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) was passed by Congress to encourage a healthy relationship between private sector workers and their employers. It was designed to curtail work stoppages, strikes, and general labor strife, which were viewed by Congress as harmful to the economy and the nation's welfare. To this end, the Act defines and protects the rights of employees and employers, encourages collective bargaining, and prohibits certain practices on the part of both labor and management. The NLRA also provides a system for conducting elections to determine who represents the employees and for enforcement of the strictures against unfair practices by any of the parties.  https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/key-reference-materials/national-labor-relations-act Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA): Employers must furnish a workplace that is free from recognized hazards. Poster required. https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/osha.htm Equal Pay Act (EPA): Forbids discrimination in pay on the basis of gender. Poster required. Two federal statutes prohibit gender-based differences in pay: the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Title VII and other federal laws also prohibit pay discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability. Although the EPA and Title VII both prohibit pay discrimination based on gender, the laws differ in several aspects, including coverage, enforcement, and remedies.  https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/epa.cfm Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Regulates the payment of minimum wages and overtime. Poster required. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), also known as the federal Wage and Hour Law, regulates minimum wage, overtime, equal pay, recordkeeping, and child labor for employees of enterprises engaged in interstate or foreign commerce and employees of state and local governments. The FLSA is enforced by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The FLSA applies in all states, but states are permitted to develop their own laws and regulations to provide even greater protection for their workers than is provided under federal law. In cases in which the two laws conflict, the law most beneficial to the employee prevails. Therefore, it is essential that employers understand both the state and federal laws. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA): Employers must verify that workers are legally entitled to work in the United States. IRCA also prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring, firing, recruiting, or referring based on national orgin or citizensip status. It is also illegal to retaliate against an employee who has filed.  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) bars employers from hiring individuals, including undocumented immigrants, who are not legally entitled to work in the United States Employers must verify that individual are eligible to work by obtaining an Employment eligibility Verification Form, know as Form I-9 and inspecting the required supporting documents at the time of hiring. I-9 forms must be retained for 3 years after the worker is hired or for one year after termination, whichever is longer. https://www.uscis.gov/i-9 Federal Income Tax Withholding:  Employers are required to make deductions from employees' pay for Social Security. Employers are required by law to make deductions from the pay of their employees for federal income tax, for Social Security tax under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA), and for Medicare tax. The government provides detailed tables for the computation of these withholding amounts. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Publication 15 (Circular E), Employer's Tax Guide, provides details and may be obtained on the IRS website athttps://www.irs.gov/forms-instructions.  What do employers need to consider regarding Social Security and Medicare? The Social Security program was created by the federal Social Security Act. It is a worker-employer-government insurance program, covering benefits for retirement, survivors, disability and Medicare. Employers withhold two separate taxes from employees' paychecks. One is the Social Security tax and the other is the Medicare tax. Medicare, which is funded through taxes, provides health insurance for people aged 65 or older and many people with disabilities. Medicare consists of Parts A (hospital insurance), B (medical insurance), and C (Medicare Advantage), which offer additional preventive health benefits and patient protections. In 2006, Medicare began offering prescription drug plans, known as Part D.  https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/federal-income-tax-withholding Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) of 1935 (Social Security): Employers and Employees are required to contribute to Social Security and Medicare. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): Limits the duration of pre-existing condition exclusion in group health plans and gives new enrollees credit for prior coverage. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/index.html If you have at least 15 employees, the following HR laws apply to you. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Forbids discrimination against the disabled. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination. In the workplace, employers cannot discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability. Reasonable accommodation by employers is required absent undue hardship. The ADA Amendments Acts of 2008 (ADAAA) and its regulations significantly broadened the definition of disability, shifting the focus away from whether an individual has a disability and toward whether discrimination occurred.  https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA): Forbids discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Several federal laws protect or grant rights to workers on the basis of pregnancy or related medical conditions. These rights and protections may include the right to be free from discrimination, harassment, and stereotypes; the right to reasonable workplace accommodations, such as job modifications, extended or additional breaks, and leave; the right to leave for pregnancy, childbirth, related medical conditions, and bonding; and the right to equivalent fringe benefits, such as health insurance. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/pregnancy.cfm Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act: To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits genetic information discrimination against employees or job applicants. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Federal fair employment laws protect employees from discrimination based on age, race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, and genetic information. Federal law covers employers of 15 or more employees, except for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which covers employers with 20 or more employees. State laws often cover employers with fewer employees and provide protection for groups not covered under federal law. Certain individuals in the workplace, such as independent contractors, are not protected by federal fair employment laws if they are not employees. Employers are liable for discriminatory acts by supervisors—in some cases, strictly liable. There are many preventive measures an employer can take to reduce the probability of being sued for discrimination. Civil rights laws also impose numerous recordkeeping requirements on employers. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Update): Extends prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex to gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/863498848/supreme-court-delivers-major-victory-to-lgbtq-employees If you have at least 20 employees, the following HR laws apply to you. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): Forbids the discrimination on the basis of age 40 and over. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits all public employers and private employers with 20 or more employees from discriminating against employees or applicants based on age. Individuals must be at least 40 years of age to be covered by the ADEA. Harassment of employees based on age is also unlawful discrimination. The ADEA also protects an older worker's disability payments, retirement incentives, life insurance, pension, and retirement plans. Amendments to the ADEA set out standards for waivers of legal rights by older employees in return for retirement incentives. Many states also have fair employment laws that prohibit age discrimination. Different age groups may be protected under state law, and smaller employers may be subject to state requirements. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adea.cfm Consolidated Omnibus Benefits Reconciliation Act (COBRA): Requires that employees who lose coverage under group health plans be given a continuation option. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/health-plans/cobra CavnessHR Product/Market Fit Validation and Tech Platform Validation To help us with our product market fit and tech platform validation. We are providing Employee Handbooks and HR policies at no cost to companies with 49 or fewer people in the city of Seattle. Email me at jasoncavness@CavnessHR.com if you are interested in this.

In episode 127, Coffey talks with Caroline Harrison about the challenges of being a multistate employer.They discuss the post-Covid growth in remote out-of-state employees; legal considerations for multistate employers; responding to the phenomenon of nomad employees; when companies are required to register and pay taxes as business in another state; noncompetes and other employment-related agreements; policies to help manage multistate employees; and complying with multiple states' PTO and FMLA laws.Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—premium background checks with fast and friendly service. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com. If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for half a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com. About our Guest:Caroline Harrison is the Managing Partner of the Fort Worth firm of Pham Harrison LLP. As an attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, she represents employers in disputes with former employees, and guides them through the sometimes-confusing arena of employment law. Her practice focuses on employment litigation and counseling. Caroline is a frequent speaker on a variety of employment topics. Recently she was honored to receive the inaugural Private Practice Achievement award from the Texas A&M School of Law Alumni Association. She is also a past Chair of the Texas Minority Counsel program and the current Chair of the Tarrant County Bar Association Women Attorney Section. She assists employers in variety of areas, including anti-discrimination and retaliation laws, drafting and enforcing covenants not to compete and non-solicitation agreements, and protection of trade secrets. She advises employers on the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), Unemployment Compensation appeals, handling complex investigations into sensitive employment issues, Wage and Hour issues, and classification of employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). She provides counseling on complex issues including discipline, termination, harassment, investigations, effective employment practices, litigation avoidance and accommodation of disabilities.Caroline Harrison can be reached at https://www.phamharrison.comhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/caroline-harrison-56062b1a/https://www.linkedin.com/company/phamharrison/About Mike Coffey:Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, human resources professional, licensed private investigator, and HR consultant.In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations firm helping risk-averse companies make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business.Today, Imperative serves hundreds of businesses across the US and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies.Mike has been recognized as an Entrepreneur of Excellence and has twice been named HR Professional of the Year. Additionally, Imperative has been named the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association. Mike is a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Entrepreneurs' Organization and volunteers with the SHRM Texas State Council.Mike maintains his certification as a Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR) through the HR Certification Institute. He is also a SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP).Mike lives in Fort Worth with his very patient wife. He practices yoga and maintains a keto diet, about both of which he will gladly tell you way more than you want to know.Learning Objectives:1. Understand the challenges faced by employers with out-of-state employees.2. Research and develop out-of-state remote-work policies.3. Comply with other states' legal and regulatory burdens on businesses, including payroll taxes, corporate registration and taxation, paid time off, and family leave.

In this episode, Chloe and Brook talk about U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny a petition to hear the case of Signet Builders Inc. V. Vanegas. The focus of this case is whether a company must pay overtime to H-2A employees who construct on-farm livestock confinement facilities or whether those employees are exempted from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime requirements as “agricultural workers.”  Hosted by Chloe Marie, Research Specialist—With Brook Duer, Staff Attorney—Produced by Chloe Marie, Written by Brook Duer Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law https://aglaw.psu.edu/ Follow us on Twitter: @AgShaleLaw Like us on Facebook: Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Teacher Workload: Teachers Get Less for More In this episode, Anne, Jen, and their special guest Maria delve into the multifaceted nature of the teacher workload, shedding light on the fact that the profession entails much more than simply standing in front of a classroom and delivering the curriculum.  We discuss the term "teachering." Anne found this term in a blog post on teachbetter.com's site. The curriculum coordinator for 21st Century Teaching and Learning, Alexy Valencic's discussed the term “teachering” in his post.  [00:06:08] Teacher workload Teaching vs Teachering.  [00:10:57] Duties and responsibilities.  [00:25:57] Compensation for extracurricular activities.  [00:29:27] Teacher overtime and FLSA labor laws.  [00:32:48] Teachers' workload and overtime pay.  [00:36:43] Teachers and overtime restrictions. [00:46:14] Saying no and setting boundaries.  According to Valencic's definitions, the teaching workload involves identifying what needs to be learned and guiding the learning process until achieving the desired goal. This encompasses state standards, curriculum instruction, teacher-student relationships, assessment, and progress monitoring. On the other hand, the teaching workload also includes “teachering,” made up of all the additional tasks and responsibilities that teachers are asked or expected to undertake, often without any extra compensation. “Teachering" tasks can range from the many meetings teachers are expected to attend to everyday things like bus and dance duties. Expectations can also include giving up lunch and after-school time for detentions, clubs, professional development, IEP meetings, and parent phone calls. Overall, the episode sheds light on the additional responsibilities and tasks teachers must shoulder beyond their classroom teaching duties.  Did you know that teachers cannot receive overtime payments? We didn't until we learned about the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). If the word “teacher” is attached to your job description, you are not entitled to overtime, no matter how little money you may make. New teachers are in the dark about the extent of the teacher workload. While new teachers may anticipate some meetings, the sheer number of meetings they must attend may surprise them. Teacher education programs fail to prepare teachers for the wide range of responsibilities they will encounter throughout their careers. To address these challenges, we suggest that teachers engage in discussions to identify and evaluate the value of their extra tasks. By collectively determining which duties are essential and which are unnecessary, teachers can advocate for changes and potentially alleviate or reduce the burden of the teacher's workload on specific responsibilities.  Additionally, we emphasize the importance of supporting new teachers and ensuring they can handle these additional duties. Experienced teachers must demonstrate to new teachers that it is acceptable to decline certain tasks, ultimately promoting a healthier work-life balance for educators. This episode underscores the reality that teachers must often go beyond their primary teaching role and assume additional responsibilities. We emphasize the need for awareness, support, and advocacy to address the challenges associated with these extra tasks and to ensure fair compensation for teachers' efforts.  Summertime is the perfect time to start coordinating efforts to reform the expectations on a teacher's time. Now is the time to get the conversation about all the unnecessary “teachering” at your school. Do this before the beginning of a new school year overwhelms your attention and you find out you've been signed up for more than you've bargained for! Thanks for listening! For a list of all the resources used to make this episode, visit https://transparencyinteaching.com/ How do you handle the workload at your school? Should teachers be entitled to overtime? Leave us your comments and suggestions. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/transparencyinteaching/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/transparencyinteaching/support

In this episode we discuss how Rick Ross' company got into trouble with the Department of Labor for messing with people's checks. But he isn't the only one. Learn about the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the importance of paying people properly. This mistake has cost companies a lot of money, so don't be that person.

In Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. v. Hewitt, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee paid a daily rate does not qualify for an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements, unless they satisfy the conditions set out in Section 541.604(b). Michael Hewitt, a former employee of Helix, sued his employer claiming overtime pay under FLSA, as he worked 84 hours a week while on the vessel, but Helix paid him a daily-rate basis with no overtime compensation. The Court concluded that Hewitt was not paid on a salary basis as defined in Section 602(a), and thus was not an executive exempt from FLSA's overtime pay guarantee.Support the show

In this episode, the Snarky Boob Queens discuss the PUMP Act. The PUMP Act, or the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act, is a federal law in the United States that was enacted in 2018. The law requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom space for nursing mothers to express breast milk at work. The PUMP Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets minimum wage and overtime pay standards for employees in the US, to include these protections for nursing mothers. The law applies to all employers covered by the FLSA and applies to nursing mothers for up to one year after the birth of a child. For more information about the PUMP Act visit: https://www.usbreastfeeding.org/the-pump-act-explained.html Send us your feedback at: thesnarkyboobqueeens@gmail.com; follow us on Facebook & Instagram at The Snarky Boob Queens

Audio of Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt (Feb 22, 2023) Majority Opinion  Michael Hewitt was paid a set, daily rate for his job working as a supervisor on an offshore oil rig, but he frequently had to work far more than the usual 40-hour work week - only without the benefit of overtime. So, Hewitt sued his employer, Helix Energy Solutions, to get the overtime pay that Hewitt argued was owed to him under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In response, Helix argued that they didn't have to pay overtime to "highly-compensated employee[s]" like Hewitt. But, Hewitt claimed that his set, daily rate technically wasn't even considered a "salary basis" anyway – which, again, meant that he qualified for overtime. Helix ended up winning in District Court, then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed before the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a supervisor making over $200,000 a year with a daily rate is entitled to overtime, despite an existing regulation carving out an exception for highly paid executives.   Music by Epidemic Sound

In this podcast, Lauren Hicks and Chris Near give an overview of the regulatory poster requirements imposed by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) on federal contractors. The speakers review noteworthy posters, how OFCCP will ensure they are posted during audits, digital accessibility, and best practices for regulatory compliance. Specifically, the speakers address the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) new “Know Your Rights” poster that replaced the prior “EEO is the Law” poster and supplement. The presentation covers additional compliance obligations including the pay transparency nondiscrimination poster, as well as wage and hour posting requirements imposed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that are applicable to federal contractors, the “Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws” poster, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) poster. The speakers also provide best practices to successfully navigating poster compliance in an OFCCP compliance review.

Robert Sanchez welcomes Captain Paramedic Elliott Guinn of Rio Rancho (NM) Fire Rescue into the FireFighter Kingdom to discuss the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other labor-related topics.Elliott Guinn has 21 years of fire service experience and has served with Rio Rancho Fire Rescue for the past 16 years. He also sits on the executive board of Rio Rancho Firefighters IAFF Local 4877.

Sharing servers' tips with managers or using servers' tips to pay other employees' wages is prohibited under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as recent developments highlight. Thank you for listening to this podcast. We will continue to keep you updated on the changing landscape of Human Resources and address any topic area you wish to learn more about regarding HR and HR Compliance.  Please leave a comment below as we value your feedback or if you have an HR question ask and we just might make your question our next episode! Follow HR Shield Online Here: YouTube: https://youtube.com/TheHRShield (https://youtube.com/TheHRShield) Instagram: https://instagram.com/HRShield (https://instagram.com/HRShield) Facebook: https://facebook.com/HRShield (https://facebook.com/HRShield) Twitter: https://twitter.com/HR_Shield (https://twitter.com/HR_Shield) Podcast: https://hr-rescue-human-resour.captivate.fm/ (https://hr-rescue-human-resour.captivate.fm) Website: https://hr-shield.com/ (https://HR-Shield.com) Store:  https://hr-rescue.com/ (https://HR-Rescue.com) Enable our Alexa Skill!!! Just say, "Alexa enable HR Shield!" About HR Shield Do you own a small business?  Are you considering starting a business? Does hiring an HR professional not fit your budget and current cash flow? Whether you are a newly certified HR professional, business owner, office manager, student or a general curious person HR Shield are certified HR specialists that provide quick, accurate and simple answers to common HR and business questions.  Our mission at HR Shield is to impact those small and midsize companies that don't yet understand the value or can't yet afford to hire a full-time certified HR professional.  Our goal is to educate the small business owner and help them understand the importance and impact an HR professional can have on their company and one day hire a full time certified professional. In addition to working with the small to mid-size business owner we provide a full white label HR portal and HR hotline for payroll companies, PEOs and staffing companies and support their small business owner clients.

Respondent was a supervisor on Helix's offshore vessels and was compensated commensurate with his high-ranking position. Every two weeks, Helix paid Respondent at least $963 for each day that he worked. In all, Respondent earned $248,053 in 2015, $218,863 in 2016, and $143,680 in the eight months he worked for Helix in 2017. After his performance- related release, Respondent sued Helix under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), claiming that he was also entitled to substantially more in retroactive overtime pay. The FLSA sensibly exempts many highly compensated supervisors from the Act's overtime requirements. Specifically, employees who perform executive duties, earn at least $100,000 per year, and receive at least $455 per week paid on a salary basis are "deemed exempt." 29 C.F.R. §541.601(a). It is undisputed that Respondent performed executive duties and met the annual earnings threshold. Nevertheless, a sharply divided en banc Fifth Circuit ruled that Respondent was non-exempt and entitled to retroactive overtime pay because he was paid based on a daily rate, not a weekly rate, even though his daily rate was more than twice the weekly minimum. The majority reached that counterintuitive conclusion only by applying a separate provision, 29 C.F.R. §541.604, that the First and Second Circuits have both held inapplicable when determining whether highly compensated employees are exempt. The question presented is: Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. §541.601 remains subject to the detailed requirements of 29 C.F.R. §541.604 when determining whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-984.html

In today's episode I speak with Christine E. Webber who is a leading plaintiff-side class-action civil rights & employment attorney. Christine is a Partner and Co-Chair of the Civil Rights & Employment practice group at Cohen Milstein. In this role, she represents victims of discrimination and wage and hour violations in class and collective actions. She has represented clients in some of the largest, groundbreaking discrimination and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and collective actions in the United States. She has been recognized with numerous of awards for her work and has served as a leader in a number of employment-law related organizations. Christine started her career as a law clerk to Judge Will on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and as a Fellow at the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights. In our conversation we discuss her path to law which began by lobbying for more rights for girls in her 3rd-grade classroom, the differences between changing the law through policy and through litigation, the importance of seeing both the big picture and the narrow details in plaintiff-side class action work, how she prepares for depositions (in her words, it is like putting a puzzle together without having the picture on the box) and the importance of both planning and flexibility in that process, why she loves working with statistical experts who are so important to her cases, how "winning" differs as a plaintiff-side class action lawyer, the skills that make newer lawyers stand out in her experience (research, details, preparation), why her decision to take a risk early on and jump at an uncertain opportunity made the rest of her career possible, and the various paths to the kind of work that she does. If you enjoy this episode, please make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode is sponsored, edited, and engineered by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys.

Attorney Dan Johns of the Cozen O'Connor law firm in Philadelphia joins Tim to talk about why, all of a sudden, employees at some well-known companies organizing to unionize their workforces. Dan has been consistently named to the Best Lawyers in America list for employment law, labor and employment litigation. Are unions in America making a comeback? Let's find out. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Union_Organizing_Final_auphonic.mp3 Amid some union victories at some major American brands, successful organizing efforts to unionize employees in places like Buffalo and Staten Island have given the organized labor movement hope that new generations may embrace collective bargaining as the “new” way to go to work. But are these victories anomalies, or are they a trend that promises to continue? But perhaps even more importantly, the interest in unionization now? Why now? Links Dan Johns Bio, Cozen O'Connor Website National Labor Relations Board, NLRB Website National Labor Relations Act, NLRB Website US Unions See Unusually Promising Moment Amid Wave of Victories, The Guardian About this Episode's Guest Dan Johns Daniel V. Johns litigates employment-related matters in courtrooms throughout the country, including numerous Courts of Appeals. Throughout his 25-year career, Daniel has represented and advised employers and their management in an array of labor and employment issues, including discrimination, harassment, and other civil rights litigation; interest and grievance arbitrations; at-will litigation; restrictive covenant/trade secret claims; benefits litigation; independent contractor classification issues; collective bargaining; union avoidance; and unfair labor practice litigation before the National Labor Relations Board and various state agencies. Recognized by Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business, labor and employment law, 2012-2020; and The Best Lawyers in America, employment law, labor and employment litigation, 2012-2021, Daniel has served as lead trial counsel in litigation matters around the country, including claims brought under: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as well as various other federal, state, and local employment laws. Daniel earned his J.D. at the University of Virginia School of Law and his B.A. at the University of Notre Dame.

Michael Macomber is a partner and CEO of Tully Rinckey PLLC, a national law firm that specializes in Federal Employment Law, Military Law and Security Clearance representation. In addition to being a Partner and CEO at Tully Rinckey PLLC, Michael is the Section Chair of the firm's New York State Employment Group. He focuses his practice on federal and private sector employment law claims, including claims involving the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), New York Labor Law, New York Executive Law and Qui Tam claims. In his federal employment practice, Michael has represented employees before the United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, MSPB, EEOC, NLRB, OSC, and various OIGs https://www.tullylegal.com/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/ferah-ozbek/message

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 established the federal minimum wage and overtime pay, created a standard work week, and prohibited children's employment in dangerous conditions. Leaders passed the FLSA not only to ensure “a fair day's pay for a fair day's work,” as FDR said, but also to end a race to the bottom on wages and working conditions that were driving business competition. The law raised wages for hundreds of thousands of workers at the time, but also deliberately excluded a number of industries, which uncoincidentally employed a large number of people of color and women. These exclusions continue to negatively affect opportunity for these groups today. The FLSA has suffered some additional wear and tear in recent decades. The failure of the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation, weak enforcement on issues such as wage theft and misclassification of independent contractors, and a failure to update the tipped minimum wage have minimized the rewards of work for many workers. While federal policy has been slow to respond, some state and local governments and businesses are addressing some of the FLSA's weaknesses by increasing wages and improving job standards in sectors such as domestic and gig work, among others. What innovations can create a more just economy that rewards work fairly? What lessons can we learn from the FLSA and its history to help us restore the commitment to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work? This event includes opening remarks from David Weil (Former Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor; Dean and Professor, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University), followed by a panel discussion with Rebecca Dixon (Executive Director, National Employment Law Project), Michael Lastoria (Co-Founder and CEO, &pizza), Teresa Romero (President, United Farm Workers), Ben Zipperer (Economist, Economic Policy Institute), and moderator Noam Scheiber (Labor Reporter, The New York Times). This is the second part in a five-part series on “The History and Future of U.S. Labor Law: Conversations to Shape the Future of Work.”

A medical staffing agency has been ordered to pay more than $7.2 million in back wages and other damages because it willfully misclassified about 1,100 workers as independent contractors rather than employees. As a result, the workers were denied overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Thank you for listening to our podcast. We will continue to keep you updated on the changing landscape of Human Resources and address any topic area you wish to learn more about regarding HR and HR Compliance.  Please leave a comment below as we value your feedback or if you have an HR question ask and we just might make your question our next episode! Follow HR Shield Online Here: YouTube: https://youtube.com/TheHRShield (https://youtube.com/TheHRShield) Instagram: https://instagram.com/HRShield (https://instagram.com/HRShield) Facebook: https://facebook.com/HRShield (https://facebook.com/HRShield) Twitter: https://twitter.com/HR_Shield (https://twitter.com/HR_Shield) Podcast: https://hr-rescue-human-resour.captivate.fm/ (https://hr-rescue-human-resour.captivate.fm) Website: https://hr-shield.com/ (https://HR-Shield.com) Store:  https://hr-rescue.com/ (https://HR-Rescue.com) Enable our Alexa Skill!!! Just say, "Alexa enable HR Shield." About HR Shield Do you own a small business?  Are you considering starting a business? Does hiring an HR professional not fit your budget and current cash flow? Whether you are a newly certified HR professional, business owner, office manager, student or a general curious person HR Shield are certified HR specialists that provide quick, accurate and simple answers to common HR and business questions.  Our mission at HR Shield is to impact those small and midsize companies that don't yet understand the value or can't yet afford to hire a full-time certified HR professional.  Our goal is to educate the small business owner and help them understand the importance and impact an HR professional can have on their company and one day hire a full time certified professional. In addition to working with the small to mid-size business owner we provide a full white label HR portal and HR hotline for payroll companies, PEOs and staffing companies and support their small business owner clients.

On this latest episode of On the Job With PORAC, PORAC President Brian Marvel and Vice President Damon Kurtz take a deep dive into SB2 and its effect on California's law enforcement with David E. Mastagni of Mastagni Holstedt and Timothy Talbot of Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC.   ABOUT DAVID E. MASTAGNI David E. Mastagni is a partner with the Labor Department of Mastagni Holstedt, APC He specializes in labor and employment law representation, including trial and appellate litigation in California and federal courts. David is also an experienced PORAC Legal Defense Fund panel attorney and is admitted in U.S. District Court, Southern, Eastern, Northern and Central Districts of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Having devoted his legal career to labor and employment litigation with an emphasis on representation of public safety representatives and their members with respect to all aspects of their employment, David has focused on complex civil, class-action, and collective-action litigation matters in labor and employment law, claims arising out of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights, the California Labor Code, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, and other statutes guaranteeing labor and employment rights to employees. He is experienced in collective bargaining and interest arbitration to establish terms and conditions of employment. CLICK HERE to learn more about Mastagni Holstedt.   ABOUT TIMOTHY TALBOT Timothy K. Talbot is a principal at Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC (“RLS”). He serves as RLS's co-managing principal, responsible for all firm operations. In addition, he manages the firm's Sacramento office and is a member of the Collective Bargaining Practice Group. Tim has practiced labor law for more than 25 years. He specializes in representing and advising labor organizations in all aspects of traditional labor relations, including contract negotiations, grievances, unfair labor practices, bargaining unit certifications and modifications, mediation, and arbitration. Tim has served as chief negotiator for hundreds of public and private sector collective bargaining agreements. In addition, Tim has extensive experience litigating public employee pension and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) matters.  Tim also represents individual peace officers, firefighters, paramedics and other employees in disciplinary matters, internal affairs investigations, critical incidents, Department of Energy security clearance investigations and hearings, and professional licensure matters. Tim has successfully represented clients in hundreds of arbitrations, administrative hearings, state and federal court cases and appellate proceedings resulting in published opinions. Tim has been repeatedly selected for inclusion in the California Super Lawyers list. CLICK HERE to learn more about Rains Lucia Stern PC.

In this episode of the Happy at Work Podcast, we spoke with Representative Mark Takano to discuss workplace policy, culture, and his vision for the 4-day-work week.Rep. Takano is an American politician and academic who has been the United States representative for California's 41st congressional district since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, Takano became the first openly gay person of Asian descent in Congress upon taking office. Additionally, Rep. Takano has made history for legislation he's put forward that would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by lowering the maximum hours threshold for overtime compensation for non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).Learn more about Rep. Takano's district and legislature here: https://takano.house.gov/ Enjoy this episode? Subscribe and stay connected with Happy at Work!To stay connected and continue the conversation, be sure to follow us on LinkedIn.And don't forget to check out our previous episodes for more tips and strategies to boost your workplace happiness. You can find them on your favorite podcast platform or on our website.If you have any questions, comments, or topic suggestions for future episodes, please reach out to us. We'd love to hear from you!Stay inspired, stay motivated, and stay happy at work!

With drastic shifts in America's workplaces in recent years, it can be hard to stay on top of labor and employment laws. From increases in the minimum wage in many states and cities to big policy plans from the Biden Administration, learn what you need to know about the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), worker classification, and overtime changes for the coming year. We accept tips, so if you have a topic you'd like us to discuss email findlawpodcasts@tr.com (we probably wouldn't refuse money, either).  

In this episode of the Happy at Work Podcast, we spoke with Representative Mark Takano to discuss workplace policy, culture, and his vision for the 4-day-work week. Rep. Takano is an American politician and academic who has been the United States representative for California's 41st congressional district since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, Takano became the first openly gay person of Asian descent in Congress upon taking office. Additionally, Rep. Takano has made history for legislation he's put forward that would reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32 hours by lowering the maximum hours threshold for overtime compensation for non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Learn more about Rep. Takano's district and legislature here: https://takano.house.gov/ Enjoy this episode? Subscribe and stay connected with Happy at Work!  

This is the first episode of PilieroMazza's series on Risk Prevention Strategies. In this episode, Nichole Atallah and Matt Feinberg, Partners in PilieroMazza's Labor & Employment and Litigation & Dispute Resolution groups, sit down to discuss common employer missteps in application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), best practices for FLSA compliance, and how to prepare if an audit or litigation arises. Disclaimer This communication does not provide legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship with you or any other listener. If you require legal guidance in any specific situation, you should engage a qualified lawyer for that purpose. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising It is possible that under the laws, rules, or regulations of certain jurisdictions, this may be construed as an advertisement or solicitation.

Peter Goselin is a labor and employment lawyer based in Hartford, Connecticut. For more than 25 years, Peter has represented individual employees and labor unions in legal claims against employers. Peter has taught classes on the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) at the University of Connecticut School of Law and a major part of his practice is wage and hour claims, including claims of wage theft brought against employers on behalf of immigrant workers. He has spoken extensively on the rights of immigrants in the workplace. Peter has been a member of the National Lawyers Guild since his first day of law school in August 1992. He ran as the Green Party candidate for Connecticut Attorney General in 2018, and is presently one of three Co-chairs of the Green Party of Connecticut. Thank you --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jamarr-jabari/support

It's normal for employers to track the hours worked of hourly or non-exempt employees.  But what about employees that are exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? This session explores why employers may want to track the hours of these salaried exempt employees and the potential risks involved. Our host is co-chair of Fisher Phillips Wage and Hour Practice group, Hagood Tighe.  He joins attorney Clarence Belnavis to discuss this timely wage and hour issue.

Dan Grinfas, a labor and employment attorney at Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan LLP, joins the Human Resources for Small Business podcast to discuss the new proposed changes by the Department of Labor (DOL) to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would raise the minimum salary for exempt workers.  In the episode, Dan reviews when the proposed changes take effect, what is actually changing, duties testing and what the practical action items for employers are right now. Dan Grinfas BioEmail Dan