Last month the Seventh Circuit drew a distinction between “commissions” and “bonuses” as those terms are used in the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and its implementing regulations. For employers, particularly those in retail, Sutula-Johnson v. Office Depot informs how employers structure, amend and communicate their employee incentive compensation schemes.

Continue Reading Be Careful What You Call It — Commission Plans In Illinois

On June 14, franchisors received good news when the US District Court in the Eastern District of Illinois ruled that Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC is not a joint employer of its franchisees’ employees.

In 2014, former employees of various Jimmy John’s franchisees brought a collective action against their former franchisee employers and against Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC. The former employees alleged they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA and consequently denied overtime pay. They also claimed that Jimmy John’s, as an alleged joint employer, was jointly liable for their damages.

On summary judgment, the Court applied a modified version of the Seventh Circuit’s Moldenhauer test to determine joint employment. It stated that all of the factors reviewed boiled down to one essential question: whether
Jimmy John’s exercised control and authority over franchise employees in a manner that caused the FLSA violation (at least in part). And, the Court determined that the evidence demonstrated that the franchise owners determine how to classify and compensate franchise employees — not Jimmy John’s. As such, Jimmy John’s did not exercise control over the alleged FLSA violation and was not a joint employer.

Click here to read more on the decision and its impact on franchisors.

In our latest episode, listen to partners Arthur Rooney and Mike Brewer discuss the recent decision from the US Supreme Court regarding class action waivers in arbitration agreements.

Download this episode (and more) on  iTunes | Android | Stitcher | TuneInGoogle Play.

But Are They Right for Your Workforce?

The US Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision on May 21, 2018 in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are fully enforceable, notwithstanding the right to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Although employers now have a tool to effectively eliminate most employment class actions through the use of arbitration agreements, several other important nuances remain to be considered before rolling out an arbitration program.

Click here to learn more about the decision and what it means for your business.

Welcome news for employers: companies can require their workers go through arbitration to pursue any legal claims against their employers, rather than go to court or join together in class lawsuits or grievances, the US Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 vote.

Writing for the majority in three consolidated cases (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, NLRB v.  Murphy Oil  USA, Inc., and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris), Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Federal Arbitration Act sets a strong policy favoring the enforcement of arbitration agreements, and employees of the three companies failed to show they had any right to disregard the arbitration agreements they signed.

The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written. While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA — much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress’s statutes to work in harmony, that is where our duty lies.

The ruling means that companies can enforce their class action waiver agreements and their employees will have to pursue their claims in individual arbitration proceedings. Please stay tuned for more to come from us on the actions employers should take now in response to this important decision.

  With all the discussion around California’s salary history ban, it’s easy to forget that some cities have adopted their own regulations. For companies with operations in San Francisco, it is important to be aware of the city’s salary history ordinance.

Here’s what you need to know:

Continue Reading Quick Reminder Regarding San Francisco’s Salary History Ban (Effective July 1, 2018)

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker v. Superior Court unleashed a flood of single-plaintiff and class-action lawsuits involving alleged violations of California’s meal and rest period laws. Under California law, employees are entitled to take at least one 30-minute uninterrupted, off-duty meal break no later than the end of their 5th hour of work. If employees work over 10 hours, they must be provided a second 30-minute meal period. Similarly, employees must also receive 10-minute rest periods for each 4 hour-period worked or major fraction thereof.

Continue Reading Take A Break To Remember Your Meal And Rest Period Obligations Under California Law

As we previously posted, on January 5, 2018, the Department of Labor did away with its previous six-factor test and announced a new “primary beneficiary” test to determine whether interns and students working for “for-profit” employers are entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See our previous post HERE, as well as the DOL’s Fact Sheet #71 HERE. While employers are required to pay employees for their work, in some circumstances, interns may not actually be employees under the FLSA, and therefore, can be unpaid.

Whether your company is already planning to bring on unpaid interns, or to the extent your company would like to explore the possibility of a new unpaid internship program, you will want to consider the DOL’s new primary beneficiary test so as to guard against potential costly claims for pay and/or overtime.

Please reach out to your Baker McKenzie lawyer for more details.

Baker McKenzie partner Susan Eandi introduces Rowan McKenzie to discuss  employment laws in Hong Kong and give an overview of what changed in 2017, as well as what we can expect in 2018.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Increase in minimum wage – came through in May 2017
  2. Be aware of what right to reinstatement may end up looking like
  3. Cognizant of potential changes in work hours and overtime for low wage earners
  4. Abolition of the Mandatory Provident Fund offset upon termination and any potential relief that may be provided to employers
  5. Staying ahead of potential changes to immigration policy

Download now on iTunes | Android | Stitcher | TuneIn | Google Play.