DOL Changes Policy on Wage and Hour Opinion Letters
Instead of fact-specific opinions, it will offer general guidance relevant to broad employer groups.
June 30, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
At the same time that the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is stepping up the heat on employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors, (See “Worker Misclassification Under Fire from Federal and State Agencies“), it has pulled back on its longstanding practice of offering guidance to employers seeking clarification on specific wage and hour issues.
In March, the WHD announced it would no longer issue opinion letters offering fact-specific guidance on issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the past, both employers and unions have sought and received guidance on wage and hour questions, although the process was slow.
“They want to step up enforcement, they want to increase the penalties substantially–they want a lot of heat on employers,” says John Thompson, a partner at Fisher & Phillips. “But they say, 'If you ask us to write an interpretation of the law on specific facts, we are not likely to do it.'”
Thompson says obtaining an opinion letter has been a frustrating experience going back long before the current administration.
“I've had an opinion request sitting there since 2003,” he says. “Every time I call they say it is in process, but it's going on seven years now.”
The lack of clear guidelines for when a worker can be classified as an independent contractor is one example of an area where employers need fact-specific guidance, he adds.
“We have employers that say they want to do what they are supposed to do, they just don't know what that is,” he says. “We've tried to ask [WHD] and they haven't answered, and now it looks like they won't.”
In announcing that it will change its approach to employer guidance, the WHD said it would issue “administrator's interpretations,” general guidance on wage and hour issues that would apply to a broader range of employers than the fact-specific opinion letters. It said the interpretations would be issued only when they relate to “an entire industry, category of employees or all employees.” According to the DOL, this will be a more efficient use of its resources.
The announcement on opinion letters came as the WHD also was launching an enhanced enforcement effort on wage and hour violators, including an initiative aimed as misclassification of independent contractors.
“I don't agree that's a good way to do it,” Thompson says. “I think their view of employers' desire to comply is unnecessarily cynical. Employers don't want this trouble. By far, most employers just want to do their business. And [WHD] overestimates how simple the law is, because it looks like it's simple and it's not.”
Thompson adds that by not issuing opinion letters, the WHD avoids being pinned down on interpretation of a matter that may end up in litigation.
“It's a lawsuit, lawyer driven agency to some extent,” he says. “And they don't want to be pinned down in litigation to certain positions. I suspect their lawyers say, 'You might be better off not answering that question.'”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
Rates Will Go Up (Again), But Here's Why Profitability Might Not Be Maximized
4 minute readFinancial Services Has a Trust Problem. Can GCs Help Right the Ship?
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250