Tuesday, September 29, 2015
2016 Ohio Minimum Wage Same As 2015
Ohio’s minimum wage of $8.10 per hour for non-tipped employees and $4.05 per hour for tipped employees will stay the same in 2016. A minimum wage of $7.25 will apply to smaller companies (yearly gross revenues of $297,00 and under) and to 14- and 15-year-olds.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Can Supervisors Enforce an Arbitration Agreement They Did Not Sign?
Plaintiff Rivera
worked for Rent a Center. He sued his supervisor, Owens, for race
discrimination. Owens presented an arbitration agreement between Rivera and
Rent a Center and asked the court to dismiss or stay the case pending
arbitration. The agreement provided arbitration of legal claims against
not only Rent a Center but also against its employees. Rivera insisted that the
agreement was between him and Rent a Center only.
The
Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision denying
Owen's Owens' motion. The reason? Pretty simple: Owens was a third-party
beneficiary of the agreement. In short, basic agency and contract principles
apply to arbitration agreements, including ones between employer and employee.
Rivera v. Rent A Center, Inc., 2015-Ohio-3765 (8th Dist., Sept, 17,
2015).
Overtime and Minimum Wages Under Ohio Law
The Cuyahoga County
Court of Appeals recently issued a highly favorable opinion for employees
seeking overtime and minimum wage payments. In Porter v. AJ Automotive Group, Inc.,
2015-Ohio-3769 (8th Dist., Sept. 17, 2015), plaintiffs claimed nonpayment of
minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
("OMFWSA"). The trial court decided that defendants were not "employers"
as defined under the FLSA and the OMFWSA because plaintiffs did not establish
that they met the $150,000 revenue threshold, but invoked its "equitable
powers" and awarded plaintiffs the difference between what defendants had
paid them and what they should have, and awarded plaintiff the difference. The
trial court, however, did not not award liquidated damages, attorney's fees and
costs which were otherwise available under the FLSA and the OMFWSA. Plaintiffs
appealed that portion of the decision.
The court of appeals
reversed, explaining:
{¶8}
According to the trial court's decision, it reasoned that the OMFWSA did not
apply because plaintiffs failed to establish that AJ Automotive
and Andrew Jackson met the definition of "employer" as contained in
R.C. 4111.03(D)(2), which provides in relevant part:
(2)
"Employer" means * * * any individual, partnership, association,
corporation, business trust, or any person or group of persons, acting in the
interest of any employer in relation to an employee, but does not include an
employer whose annual gross volume of sales made for business done is less than
one hundred fifty thousand dollars * * *.
{¶9}
The trial court's reliance on this section to deny plaintiffs protection under
the OMFWSA was flawed for two reasons. First, this section applies to
"overtime" and does not relate to a claim for failure to pay minimum
wage, which is the bulk of Porter and White's claims. R.C. 4111.02, which
governs an employer's duty to pay minimum wage, expressly states that "[e]very
employer, as defined in Section 34a, Article II, Ohio Constitution, shall pay
each of the employer's employees at a wage rate of not less than the wage rate
specified in Section 34a of Article II, Ohio Constitution." The statute
does not contain a sales threshold within the definition of an employer.
{¶10} Article II, Section 34a, Ohio Constitution sets forth that "`employer' and `employee' shall have the same meanings as under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or its successor law * * *." Under the federal FLSA, AJ Automotive and Andrew Jackson satisfy the broad definition of "employer," which is defined as "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee * * *." 29 U.S.C. 203(d).
{¶10} Article II, Section 34a, Ohio Constitution sets forth that "`employer' and `employee' shall have the same meanings as under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act or its successor law * * *." Under the federal FLSA, AJ Automotive and Andrew Jackson satisfy the broad definition of "employer," which is defined as "any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee * * *." 29 U.S.C. 203(d).
The court further stated
that employers have the burden of proving their business' gross volume is
less than $150,000 (citing Graham v. Harbour, 20
Ohio App.3d 293, 297, 486 N.E.2d 184 (10th Dist.1984).
The lesson here is that
Ohio plaintiff's employment lawyers should plead overtime and minimum wage
claims under the OMFWSA as well as under the FLSA. Moreover, according to Judge
Robert McClelland of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, trial courts
have equitable authority to award minimum wages and overtime, even if the FLSA
and OMFWSA do not apply. Clearly a victory for plaintiffs. Kudos to plaintiffs'
lawyer, Alan Goodman, for his work on this case.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Halliburton Agrees to Pay $18,293,557 in Overtime Wages
The Department of Labor reports:
In one of the largest recoveries of overtime wages in recent years for the U.S. Department of Labor, oil and gas service provider, Halliburton, has agreed to pay $18,293,557 to 1,016 employees nationwide. The department’s Wage and Hour Division investigated Halliburton as part of an ongoing, multi-year compliance initiative in the oil and gas industry in the Southwest and Northeast.
In one of the largest recoveries of overtime wages in recent years for the U.S. Department of Labor, oil and gas service provider, Halliburton, has agreed to pay $18,293,557 to 1,016 employees nationwide. The department’s Wage and Hour Division investigated Halliburton as part of an ongoing, multi-year compliance initiative in the oil and gas industry in the Southwest and Northeast.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Training American Workers For the Global Economy
The U.S. Department of Labor announced today that it has awarded $13 million to Catholic Relief Services to train Honduran and El Salvadoran workers for the global economy. While I think that's a great idea, shouldn't that money be used train Americans to compete in the global economy? Just a quick thought.Labor Department Announcement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)