Employers Jailed for Failing to Pay Back Wages

Ever wonder just how far government agencies will go to punish employers who don’t pay back wages?

As the owners of Southern California Maid Services and Carpet Cleaning Inc. found out recently, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is prepared to take misbehaving employers all the way to the jail house to enforce back wage orders.

---

How confident are you that your pay practices are in line with state and federal requirements? Find out how to make sure you’re covering all your wage and hour bases by joining us tomorrow for the 90-minute webinar: HR Self-Audits in California: How to Find (and Fix) the Legal Time Bombs in Your Workplace.

Register now»

Find out more»

---

Following a lawsuit brought by the DOL, the owners of the maid service—Sergio Maldonado and Lorenza Rubio of Rolling Hills Estates—were ordered by a California court in August 2007 to pay $3.5 million in back wages and penalties to 385 of their current and former employees. The owners ignored the court’s order.

The DOL then obtained a contempt order from the court, and on October 30, 2009, the owners were arrested and held for 4 days at the Santa Ana jail. The owners were released following a hearing, where they were ordered to pay the entire $3.5 million by November 12 or face new contempt charges.

This case is a stark reminder that the new Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, means to make good on her promise to come down hard on employers who fail to pay properly. With the recent addition of over 250 new wage and hour inspectors, the DOL has more resources available to not only get judgments against employers, but also enforce those judgments. Employers should expect that California’s Department of Industrial Relations will follow the DOL’s lead.

---

Don’t Wait Until It’s Too Late to Fix Compliance Problems

Most HR professionals have their hands full these days with regular day-to-day operations. But lurking just beneath the surface are hidden legal dangers that pose enormous legal and financial risks down the road…

…from employee policies and forms that haven’t been updated in years…to frontline supervisors who haven’t been trained in the latest HR laws and rules…to misclassified employees…to misinterpreted leave and PTO rules…and more. Making matters even worse is the fact that most HR professionals simply don’t have the time to keep up with all of the big legal and regulatory changes coming at them from all sides.

It may seem like you don’t have time for an HR audit, but the truth is that you simply can’t afford to put it off. Don’t wait until you’re hit with a costly lawsuit or government investigation. Be proactive and join us on Nov. 12 for a can’t-miss 90-minute webinar specifically for California HR professionals, where you’ll learn:

• Why it makes sense to review your current HR practices and fix problems now—before they erupt into something unfixable
• What you should do right now to set plans for a top-to-bottom HR self-audit
• The steps involved in reviewing your existing employment policies, files, and procedures
• Which red flags you should look for as the critical signs that you may be in legal trouble
• Who should conduct the HR audit—and when it makes sense to bring in outside help
• Which types of employee claims and government investigations increase dramatically during recessions—and how you can prepare for them before they hit your organization
• How to fix any problems you discover during the course of your HR audit (without making matters worse)

Register now»

Find out more»

“Sugar Coating” Reason for Termination Will Leave Sour Aftertaste, Lawyer Says

Managers are often tempted to “sugar coat” the reasons an employee is terminated for poor performance, particularly when hard economic times support the contention. But, according to attorney Allen M. Kato, counsel at the San Francisco office of law firm Fenwick & West, LLP, this could turn very sour if the employee is inclined to sue.

“Juries get to decide. If, at the time of discharge, you told the employee, ‘You are being laid off. It has nothing to do with your performance,’ and then turn around at trial and say it was ‘poor performance,’ don’t be surprised if the jury doesn’t believe you,” Kato said. His remarks came during the ERI 2009 California Employment Law Update conference in San Francisco, held Nov. 4-6, 2009.

The employee’s attorney will try embarrass you by “proving” that you and the company “lied” by showing that the reason given in court was different than that originally given. This is particularly damaging if the employee was replaced. “Don’t expect juries to be sympathetic,” he said.

Making Life Harder

“If I’m litigating on your behalf, I can fight this ‘proof,’” Kato joked, “but you don’t have to make life harder for me.” Kato’s remedy: Above all else, train managers. Don’t allow them to say anything that isn’t true. Explanations should be honest and concise. They don’t have to be detailed. For example, they can say, “‘Performance was a factor.’ They don’t have to say anything else. That simple statement is all it takes.”

Big Impact

Kato said that this is an area where HR can have a big impact. A mistake can create serious legal liability, but a little training can go a long way.

Rules of Thumb for Terminations

He also offered some brief rules of thumb for terminations:

The “Dos”

• Allow around 10 minutes for the meeting (but don’t seem rushed)
• Briefly explain the reason for the termination
• Explain final pay and any severance benefits that are being offered
• Explain continuing obligation to protect trade secrets and other exit issues
• Offer to answer any questions

The “Don’ts”

• Don’t argue with the employee
• Don’t bad mouth the company
• Don’t suggest the decision was unfair
• Don’t inaccurately give hope for re-hire
• If performance played a role in the employee’s selection (for layoff), don’t suggest otherwise.

Court Says Employee Stock Ownership Plan Doesn’t Violate Labor Code

In recent years, many employers have begun offering employees stock ownership in the company either in lieu of bonuses, or as deferred compensation—often called Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs).

Once such employer is Citigroup, which offers a voluntary employee incentive compensation plan that provides employees with shares of restricted company stock at a reduced price as a portion of that employee’s annual cash compensation. In selecting this voluntary compensation plan, employees agreed in writing that if they resigned or were terminated before the end of the two year period in which the stock ownership vested, the stock would be forfeited.

---

Are you offering employees the right benefits to meet their needs and yours? Get expert guidance on how to pick the right benefit options by joining us on November 16 for the 90-minute webinar: Employee Benefits in 2010: Proven Strategies for Improving Your Benefits and Controlling the Costs

Register Now »

---

David Schachter was employed as a stockbroker by Smith Barney, Inc., a subsidiary of Citigroup, in the company’s Los Angeles office. Schachter chose to participate in Citigroup’s ESOP, taking 5 percent of his annual compensation in the form of restricted stock. Sixteen months later, Schacter resigned—just eight month’s before his stock was scheduled to vest.

Schachter then brought a class action lawsuit, claiming that Citigroup’s ESOP terms violated the California Labor Code. In California, employers are prohibited from retaining any portion of an employee’s earned compensation, and must pay resigning employees all earned wages within 72-hours of the employee’s last day of work. Thus, Schachter asserted that the ESOP agreement’s forfeiture provision was unlawful.

The California Supreme Court disagreed. Specifically, the court found that because Schachter’s ownership rights to the compensation hadn’t yet vested, and because Schachter voluntarily elected to take part of his compensation as stock knowing when it would vest, the employer’s ESOP terms do not violate California law.

We’ll have more on this case, and provide an overview of the rules of ESOPs, in an upcoming issue of California Employer Advisor (www.employeradvice.com).

---

Manage Your Benefits Better in 2010

You can count on two things when it comes to employee benefits:

Your costs will probably go up year after year—and your employees will never understand how much you spend on them. Many workers take their benefits for granted, and some even mistakenly believe they’re required by law to get them.

One recent national survey says the cost of benefits is one of the top three factors affecting the bottom lines of U.S. employers. Because benefits can be critical for attracting and retaining talent, you’re always searching for ways to preserve (and even expand) your offerings to keep your workers happy. But you can’t master what you don’t measure, and many employers have no idea which benefits their employees truly want or value.

Join us on Nov. 16 for this practical 90-minute webinar on employee benefits trends in 2010, where you’ll learn:

• How much your key employee benefits costs will rise in 2010—and what you can do to curb those price hikes
• What you can do now to rein in your health benefits costs, from introducing wellness programs to switching to consumer-driven health plans
• The newest non-health benefits options that you can roll out next year without breaking your budget
• How to audit your existing benefits and find benchmarks to see how you stack up against your peers and your competitors
• Best practices for soliciting honest, candid feedback from your employees about their benefits
• The steps you should follow in shopping around to identify the best benefits programs—and, when you find them, how to negotiate the best deals
• How to monitor the ongoing costs of your benefits programs and guard against surprises at renewal time

Register now»

Find out more»

EEOC Issues New Mandatory Workplace Poster

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revised its “EEO is the Law” workplace poster.

All employers are required by federal law to post the current version of this poster. The last revision to the poster occurred in 2002. If you are currently displaying the 2002 version of the poster, you can download a supplemental poster to be displayed alongside the 2002 version here. The full revised poster is available here.

CEA Online subscribers can access all of our required notices charts here.

---

How can you ensure that your company’s policies are covering all your bases? Find out by joining us on November 12 for the interactive 90-minute webinar: HR Self-Audits in California: How to Find (and Fix) the Legal Time Bombs in Your Workplace.

---

For private employers, the poster was revised to add the following two sections:

The Disability section is revised as follows:

DISABILITY

Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, protect qualified individuals from discrimination on the basis of disability in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. Disability discrimination includes not making reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, barring undue hardship.

The following section is added:

GENETICS

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on genetic information in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. GINA also restricts employers’ acquisition of genetic information and strictly limits disclosure of genetic information. Genetic information includes information about genetic tests of applicants, employees, or their family members; the manifestation of diseases or disorders in family members (family medical history); and requests for or receipt of genetic services by applicants, employees, or their family members.

Other additions were made regarding employers engaged in federal contracting. Also, the EEOC’s contact information was updated.

---

What’s the Best Way to Stay On Top of Legal Changes?

Most HR professionals have their hands full these days with regular day-to-day operations. But lurking just beneath the surface are hidden legal dangers that pose enormous legal and financial risks down the road…

…from employee policies and forms that haven’t been updated in years…to frontline supervisors who haven’t been trained in the latest HR laws and rules…to misclassified employees…to misinterpreted leave and PTO rules…and more. Making matters even worse is the fact that most HR professionals simply don’t have the time to keep up with all of the big legal and regulatory changes coming at them from all sides.

It may seem like you don’t have time for an HR audit, but the truth is that you simply can’t afford to put it off. Don’t wait until you’re hit with a costly lawsuit or government investigation. Be proactive and join us on Nov. 12 for a can’t-miss 90-minute webinar specifically for California HR professionals, where you’ll learn:

• Why it makes sense to review your current HR practices and fix problems now—before they erupt into something unfixable
• What you should do right now to set plans for a top-to-bottom HR self-audit
• The steps involved in reviewing your existing employment policies, files, and procedures
• Which red flags you should look for as the critical signs that you may be in legal trouble
• Who should conduct the HR audit—and when it makes sense to bring in outside help
• Which types of employee claims and government investigations increase dramatically during recessions—and how you can prepare for them before they hit your organization
• How to fix any problems you discover during the course of your HR audit (without making matters worse)

Register now»

Find out more»

Suspending Employees Without Pay During Investigations Can Be Risky

You have strong reason to suspect that an employee has engaged in serious misconduct, such as theft or sexual harassment. But you don’t want to fire the employee based solely on suspicion. So instead, you place the employee on unpaid leave until you’re able to complete your internal investigation.

At the conclusion of the investigation, two weeks later, you find that your original suspicions were well founded. You let the employee go, paying out all eared wages and benefits at the time of termination.

The employee then files a claim for waiting time penalties—and wins. What went wrong?

---

When can California employees claim waiting time penalties? Find out my joining us on November 3 for the comprehensive 90-minute webinar: Final Paychecks in California: Common (and Costly) Pitfalls to Avoid

Register now»

---

The California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) treats unpaid suspensions like layoffs. Under California law, if an employee is laid off or suspended without pay, and without a definite return-to-work date within the same pay period, the employee is legally deemed to have been terminated as of the date of the layoff or suspension.

This means a laid-off or suspended employee must be paid all earned wages and benefits (including earned but unused vacation or PTO time) on the day that the employee last performed any work.

If you don’t, the employee will be entitled to receive waiting time penalties—calculated as 8 hours of pay for each day that the employee must wait for his or her final pay, capped at 30 days.

So if an employee is suspended during an investigation into possible misconduct and then is ultimately fired for good cause, you could still end up owing the employee additional pay for each day of the investigation period. If the employee sues you in court to get the waiting time penalties, you might have to pay the employee’s legal fees as well.

In order to avoid liability for waiting time penalties during unpaid suspensions, investigations into employee misconduct should be completed within the pay period in which the employee is suspended.

---

Why You Can’t Simply Pay Departing Employees on Your Normal Payroll Schedule

Calculating and administering final pay for departing workers raises a host of complicated questions. Is accrued vacation considered part of an employee’s final pay? When is the final paycheck due? Does it matter whether the worker’s employment ended voluntarily or involuntarily? These are just a few of the questions you must be prepared to correctly answer—or put your company at tremendous legal and financial risk.

Join us on Nov. 3 for an in-depth, interactive 90-minute webinar all about final paychecks. Our expert—a seasoned California labor and employment attorney—will answer the questions above. You’ll also learn:

• Whether you can legally deduct for company property the departing worker has damaged or failed to return (such as keys, cellphones, laptops, and uniforms)
• How voluntary versus involuntary terminations could affect the timeline for issuing final pay
• How compensation owed for unused vacation time, sick time, and personal time is generally calculated
• What you can do if you’ve overpaid a worker
• How to respond if a worker claims you still owe compensation
• The penalties you could face for not complying with final paycheck rules

Register now»

Find out more»

Terminated Employee Was Not a Whistleblower, Court Says

Is every employee who makes a formal complaint considered a “whistleblower”?

The federal District Court says no.

Mark Shulthies, a long time Amtrak employee working in California, sent an email to his supervisor complaining that the company’s decision to reorganize certain aspects of its service between the Bay Area and Bakersfield posed a “danger to the public.” Amtrak took no action on Shulthies’ complaint. A few months later, he was fired.

---

What’s the best way to spot potential whistleblower issues when before you fire a worker? Find out by joining us on October 30 for the 90-minute webinar: Terminating Employees in California: What You Should (and Should Not) Do When Firing Workers to Avoid Legal Trouble.

Register now»

---

Shulthies sued, alleging that he was fired for being a whistleblower. Two separate provisions of the California Labor Code protect employees who make complaints about safety issues, or about their employer violating state or federal law. Shulthies sued under both statutes.

Siding with Amtrak, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Shulthies’ case. The court ruled that while Shulthies complained that the route reorganization implemented by Amtrak would cause service disruptions and create “unsafe working conditions,” these complaints were too general to qualify as complaints about safety issues or violations of law.

The court also emphasized that not every employee complaint deserves whistleblower protection. Rather, the law only protects employees who are making bona fide complaints about specific safety hazards, or who have an objective reason to believe that their employer is breaking the law. Thus, Shulthies had no basis for challenging his termination.

We’ll have more on this case, and on which employee complaints are protected by whistleblower laws, in an upcoming issue of California Employer Advisor.

---

Hesitant to Terminate Employees Who Have Filed Complaints?

“You’re fired!” “It’s just not working out.” “We’re going to have to let you go.”

No matter how you say it, terminations—whether they involve a single employee or a large-scale layoff—are probably one of the least favorite parts of your job. Along with the emotional stress they cause, terminations can also pose enormous legal risks. Make one mistake in the firing process, even an innocent one, and your company may quickly itself embroiled in a costly lawsuit.

There are so many different ways to get it wrong:

• You say something to a departing employee in the heat of the moment that is prime lawsuit fodder later on.
• You discover after the firing that the ex-employee’s supervisor has always written glowing performance appraisals for that worker—and the documentation now suggests retaliation.
• You go the extra mile by offering severance payments with waivers to employees being laid off—but a common wording error later renders those waivers unenforceable.
• You make an error calculating a terminated employee’s final paycheck, or you withhold funds from departing workers that you’re not lawfully allowed to deduct.

Join us on Oct. 30 for this in-depth 90-minute webinar, where you’ll learn:

• The most common termination-related mistakes California employers make—and how to avoid repeating them
• Why you must prepare for the possibility of termination even before you hire an employee
• The specific policies and practices you need in place to lawsuit-proof your company before you terminate another employee
• What you should always say—and what you must never say—when letting an employee go
• How to review your severance agreements to make sure they’re binding, and risky language to watch out for
• The crucial post-termination steps you should take to stay out of legal trouble
• What to do when an employee fired for cause later asks you for a job reference
• The unique risks involved in group layoffs, as well as terminations involving older workers
• What you can—and cannot—deduct from a terminated worker’s last paycheck

Register now»

Find out more»

“No-Match” Rule Officially Dropped

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has officially dropped the controversial “no-match” rule, which required employers to fire workers if there was a discrepancy between a worker’s Social Security Number (SSN) and official government records. The rule also imposed penalties on employers who didn’t fire employees if the discrepancy wasn’t quickly explained.

---

Need in-depth yet practical information on staying compliant with California and federal laws? Get the information you need by joining us on November 4-6 in San Francisco for the 2009 California Employment Law Update conference.

---

Employers’ groups nationwide are praising DHS’ decision to scrap the “no-match” regulations, noting that the rule—originally enacted in 2007—has caused serious headaches for employers, and has resulted in many legal employees losing their jobs because of inaccurate and outdated government record databases.

The good news, however, may be a little bittersweet. DHS has stated that dropping the “no-match” rule doesn’t mean that the agency is easing up on immigration enforcement efforts. To the contrary, DHS has stated that it plans to put more inspectors into the field to investigate illegal workers.

This will very likely mean that, instead of focusing on catching individual workers who don’t have valid SSNs, the agency will put more employers under the microscope in an effort to find those companies that routinely hire illegal immigrants. The result will be that more law-abiding employers will have to undergo immigration inspections as part of DHS’ new enforcement efforts.

We’ll have more on what employers now have to do to verify employment eligibility in an upcoming issue of California Employer Advisor.

---

Navigating a Brave New World for HR

You’re an experienced HR professional. Your company depends on you to stay on top of new developments and make sure your policies and practices are in compliance. This year, the challenge is tougher than ever.

You face:

• A new president
• A new pro-employee administration and Congress
• Big changes to big laws, like FMLA and ADA
• Now-defunct same-sex marriage in California
• The looming threat of “easier than ever” unions
• U.S. Supreme Court rulings that expand employees’ rights to sue for retaliation
• New equal pay laws that could mean millions of new lawsuits
• Employees angry about layoffs, salary freezes, and rising benefits costs
• An economy where the only constant is decline
• The ongoing Brinkley/Brinker meal and rest breaks saga

It’s enough to make your head spin!

And let’s face it: in this economy, the last thing your company can afford is a devastatingly expensive lawsuit. Your risks have never been higher.

You’re up to the challenge—and we can help.

Now’s the time to arm yourself with the tools you need to succeed, to help your business flourish in the Brave New World of HR in 2009.

In this time of unprecedented change, you need, now more than ever, solid information. Informed advice. Practical tips from the experts who know your industry—and your state—best.

Join us for the fourth-annual ERI California Employment Law Update conference in San Francisco from November 4-6 for in-depth, comprehensive instruction on what you need to know now.

Register now

Find out more

Departing Employees? You Must Notify Them of Their Unemployment Rights.

Many California employers are surprised to learn that they must give all departing employees notice of their right to seek unemployment benefits—even if it’s a termination for good cause, and even if an employee leaves voluntarily.

---

Do you know what to say to employees before they leave your company? Find out by joining us on October 30 for the 90-minute webinar: Terminating Employees in California: What You Should (and Should Not) Do When Firing Workers to Avoid Legal Trouble

Register Now»

---

Under Labor Code Section 1089, all California employers must:

• Post a notice in each work location notifying employees of unemployment and disability insurance rights. This notice can be downloaded from the California Employment Development Division (EDD) here.
• At the time any employee separates from employment, regardless of the reason for the separation, the employer must provide written information regarding benefits available to the unemployed. The information—contained in a 22 page guide prepared by the EDD—can be downloaded here.

An employer’s failure to post and provide these required notices about unemployment benefits is a misdemeanor, and may result in the imposition of civil penalties (imposed either by the state, or through an employee lawsuit).

In addition to notice regarding unemployment benefits, California employers must also give departing employees written notice of:

• Change in the status of the employment relationship (e.g., that the employee is being laid off or terminated, or has resigned);
• Notice regarding COBRA rights and Medi-Cal eligibility requirements; and
• Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act Notice (WARN) if there is a mass layoff of employees (meaning 75 or more employees in a 100 mile radius).

---

Are You Inviting Lawsuits From Departing Employees?

“You’re fired!” “It’s just not working out.” “We’re going to have to let you go.”

No matter how you say it, terminations—whether they involve a single employee or a large-scale layoff—are probably one of the least favorite parts of your job. Along with the emotional stress they cause, terminations can also pose enormous legal risks. Make one mistake in the firing process, even an innocent one, and your company may quickly itself embroiled in a costly lawsuit.

There are so many different ways to get it wrong:

• You say something to a departing employee in the heat of the moment that is prime lawsuit fodder later on.
• You discover after the firing that the ex-employee’s supervisor has always written glowing performance appraisals for that worker—and the documentation now suggests retaliation.
• You go the extra mile by offering severance payments with waivers to employees being laid off—but a common wording error later renders those waivers unenforceable.
• You make an error calculating a terminated employee’s final paycheck, or you withhold funds from departing workers that you’re not lawfully allowed to deduct.

Join us on Oct. 30 for this in-depth 90-minute webinar, where you’ll learn:

• The most common termination-related mistakes California employers make—and how to avoid repeating them
• Why you must prepare for the possibility of termination even before you hire an employee
• The specific policies and practices you need in place to lawsuit-proof your company before you terminate another employee
• What you should always say—and what you must never say—when letting an employee go
• How to review your severance agreements to make sure they’re binding, and risky language to watch out for
• The crucial post-termination steps you should take to stay out of legal trouble
• What to do when an employee fired for cause later asks you for a job reference
• The unique risks involved in group layoffs, as well as terminations involving older workers
• What you can—and cannot—deduct from a terminated worker’s last paycheck

Register now»

Find out more»

New Survey Says Pay Violations Rampant; DOL Stepping Up Inspections

In response to the published results of a recent survey of low-wage workers in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago, U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis announced that the Department of Labor (DOL) will be putting at least 250 more wage and hour inspectors on the ground to audit employer compensation practices.

In other words, it’s time to give your pay-related policies and practices a tune-up.

---

How would you fare in the event of a surprise visit from the state Wage & Hour Division? Don’t get nailed—get prepared. Join us on Nov. 4 for a 90-minute webinar specifically for California employers: Exemption Classifications: Prepare for Stepped-Up Enforcement Efforts by Conducting an Accurate and Thorough Self-Audit

---

The survey—conducted by researchers at the University of California, City University of New York, and the University of Chicago—reports that the average low-wage employee in those cities lose approximately of 15 percent of their owed income per week as a result of wage and hour violations. Specifically, the survey also found that:

• 57 percent of the low-wage workers surveyed did not receive proper pay stubs for each pay period;
• 26 percent reported being paid less than the minimum wage;
• 76 percent of employees who worked overtime hours reported not being paid the correct amount of overtime wages;
• 41 percent of the deductions made from employee wages were illegal deductions;
• 25 percent of employees reported being made to work off the clock—and, of those, 70 percent said they weren’t paid for the time they spent working off the clock;
• 20 percent of employees reported complaining to management or trying to start a labor union—43 percent of those who did reported experiencing some form of retaliation.
• 50 percent of employees who reported workplace injuries to their employer claimed being subjected to some form of retaliation;

The survey noted that the majority of employees who experienced pay related violations and losses worked for small and mid-sized employers, which means that smaller employers can expect to be the focus of the DOL’s new compliance inspection efforts over the next year. As such, smart companies should plan on adding a pay practices self-audit to their year-end “to-do list” for 2009.

---

Government Inspectors Are Stepping It Up—Are You?

Employees (and former employees affected by recent layoffs) are increasingly bringing wage-and-hour actions alleging they were misclassified as exempt. Along with heightened WHD enforcement efforts in force, now’s a risky time to make mistakes.

If the WHD’s stepped up efforts aren’t enough to make your organization take notice, consider this: In two recent lawsuits, juries awarded workers $35.6 million and $2.5 million, respectively, finding that their employers—two big-name retailers—misclassified them as managers and unlawfully failed to pay them overtime.

Join us on November 4 for an in-depth 90-minute webinar—specifically for California employers—all about how to conduct a thorough self-audit of your overtime exemptions so you don’t find yourself being questioned by workers about exemption classifications or, even worse, defending a multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit. Our experts, both experienced employment law attorneys, will cover the ins and outs of an FLSA overtime exemption self-audit. You’ll learn:

• What records you should audit and when
• The key questions your audit should address, including inquiries into salary deductions and predetermined amounts of work and compensation
• Best practices for obtaining accurate information about your workers’ job duties
• How to properly analyze your audit findings, and the essential techniques to use so you maximize audit results and minimize potential legal exposures
• How to remedy exemption and employment relationship misclassifications, as well as resulting issues with overtime pay

Register now

Find out more