DOL's New PAID Program Offers Employers Incentives, But May Not Outweigh the Risks
Recently, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a pilot program, called the payroll audit independent determination (PAID) program, to facilitate the payment of back wages owed to employees and accidentally not paid by employers in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
March 27, 2018 at 10:25 AM
5 minute read
Recently, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a pilot program, called the payroll audit independent determination (PAID) program, to facilitate the payment of back wages owed to employees and accidentally not paid by employers in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The DOL's goal in initiating the PAID program is to resolve FLSA violations “expeditiously and without litigation.” To encourage employers to self-report their violations in accordance with the program, the WHD assured employers that it will not require the payment of liquidated damages or civil monetary penalties by employers who participate in the program, although it will require the employers to pay all back wages owed (i.e., all minimum wage and overtime pay owed).
This article explains the PAID program and the potential advantages and disadvantages to employers who voluntarily choose to use the program.
|The Typical Resolution of FLSA Violations
For FLSA violations that are not resolved pursuant to the PAID program, an employer may be obligated to pay the unpaid minimum wages and overtime pay, an equal amount as liquidated damages and an employee's attorney fees and costs. An employer who willfully violates the FLSA can also be subject to civil and criminal penalties. Typically, the failure of an employer to pay minimum wage or overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA is resolved through a DOL investigation or a lawsuit by an employee or group of employees.
|The New Alternative: The PAID Program
Now, if an employer chooses to self-report an FLSA violation under the PAID program rather than waiting for the DOL or an employee to uncover the violation, the employer may avoid litigation (and the associated costs), the imposition of liquidated damages and civil monetary penalties. Of course, the employer will have to pay 100 percent of the back wages owed.
Any FLSA-covered employer is eligible to participate in the program, provided it:
- Has not received a communication from an employee or employee representative expressing an interest in litigating or resolving the issue;
- Is not already litigating the issue; and
- The WHD is not already investigating the employer with respect to the issue.
To use the PAID program, an employer must audit its pay practices and agree to correct any errors in the future. If an employer determines that its pay practices violate the FLSA, or if an employer believes its practices are questionable and wants to resolve any potential FLSA claims, the employer must:
- Identify the potential violations, the relevant timeframe and the employees affected; and
- Calculate the back wages owed.
After undertaking these steps, the employer will contact the WHD. Unless the WHD denies an employer's request to participate in the program, it will inform the employer how to submit additional required information, evidence and certifications. After assessing the information, the WHD will notify affected employees and issue a summary of unpaid wages, as well as forms describing the settlement terms for each employee. Employee releases will be limited to the potential violations being paid, and employers will be required to pay the back wages by the end of the next pay period after receiving the summary of unpaid wages.
The WHD plans to implement the PAID program for approximately six months before evaluating whether to continue or modify it.
|Risks of Participation in the PAID Program
Although the WHD has not fully disclosed the contents of the program, some potential advantages and disadvantages are already apparent. The potential advantages are obvious: the avoidance of liquidated damages, civil monetary penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. But, an employer only obtains those advantages if the affected employees accept the back wages. That means the potential disadvantages of the program include the risk that an employer alerts the WHD and its employees to violations, and the employees choose not to accept the back wages but instead file suit to seek all available remedies under the FLSA. In other words, an employer may actually increase its risk of litigation by participating in the program.
Additionally, even if the affected employees accept the back wages owed, an employer will not receive a broad release from the employees; the releases will be limited to the FLSA violations identified and paid under the program. Moreover, the WHD will not waive its right to investigate an employer in the future, and the WHD can deny an employer's request to participate in the program. Finally, the PAID program will (presumably) not resolve any wage claims under state law, which will leave employers who settle FLSA violations with employees under the PAID program vulnerable to lawsuits (perhaps from those same employees) for violations of state law.
The degree to which these risks may be realized cannot be fully determined until the DOL issues specific and final guidelines and documents for the PAID program.
|Guidance for Employers
As noted, once the WHD implements the PAID program and provides additional materials relating thereto, more potential advantages and disadvantages may become apparent. Given the risks associated with FLSA violations and the PAID program, employers should consult employment counsel to assess any potential FLSA violations prior to participating in the PAID program.
Alicia H. Koepke is a shareholder with Trenam in Tampa. She focuses her practice on employment and business law and related litigation. Contact her at [email protected].
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 AllNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readNavigating Florida Property Insurance Claims in a Post-Fee-Shifting World
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Insurance Company Sues Over 180 Health Care Providers for Fraud Under RICO
- 2Who Knocked on the Supreme Court’s Door in November?
- 3California Law Firms Continue Staffing Up as Year Winds Down
- 4US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
- 5Temporary Fix to Public Notice Law Easily Approved in NJ Senate
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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