On April 1, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed a new regulation for determining a company’s joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act. When two companies are deemed joint employers, they share responsibility for the workers’ wages, which include the payment of minimum wages and overtime. Under the new rule, the Labor Department

Administering payroll for employees with variable work schedules and hourly rates can cause major headaches for employers. In an effort to simplify and reduce administrative costs, employers are oftentimes tempted to set a standard overtime rate to be paid at a set dollar amount to all employees regardless of variations in compensation rates and actual

It’s no secret that President Obama’s use of executive orders to transform workplace laws was unprecedented. But perhaps even more unprecedented is how quickly those efforts have been derailed by the Trump administration. From NLRB appointments, to safety standards, to persuader-disclosure and joint-employment rules—to name a few—the White House has been systematically reversing workplace

Employers in union settings know that they generally cannot make changes to their employees’ wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment without first negotiating to impasse with the union. The exception to this rule has historically been that the employers could make changes, as long as they could show that their labor contract

On July 13, 2016, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released a proposed revised Employer Information Report (EEO-1) (“Proposed Revision”). This slightly changes the original EEOC proposal to add compensation and hours worked data to the EEO-1 Report. An example of the proposed EEO-1 report can be found here. The

The United States Supreme Court held today that pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt from overtime under the outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The significance of the decision for labor lawyers and employers is not necessarily in the result, but in the Court’s sharp criticism of the DOL’s interpretation of its regulations