Recent and Anticipated Changes to Wage-and-Hour Laws
Wage claims provide significant risk not only to businesses, but also to their owners and supervisors, who can be sued in their individual capacity for FLSA violations.
February 28, 2019 at 10:45 AM
5 minute read
Wage-and-hour claims are among the most common—and expensive—employment claims. Claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for example, can lead to employees recovering not only unpaid minimum wages or overtime pay, but also double damages, attorney fees and costs. Because employees often file such lawsuits as class or collective actions, the potential liability can be substantial. Wage claims provide significant risk not only to businesses, but also to their owners and supervisors, who can be sued in their individual capacity for FLSA violations. Thus, it is imperative that employers properly compensate their workforce. To do so, employers must keep track of this ever-changing area of the law. This article addresses recent changes to Florida and federal wage-and-hour laws, and discusses changes expected in the year to come.
Recent Changes
- Tipped Employees
Effective Jan. 1, Florida's minimum hourly wage increased to $8.46 from $8.25. Employers must pay at least this rate for all hours worked by Florida nonexempt employees. For Florida employers taking an eligible “tip credit,” the minimum direct hourly wage to tipped employees is now up to $5.44 from $5.23.
In addition to the increase in minimum wages owed to tipped workers, other recent changes to the laws regulating tipped employees include:
- Employers May Not Retain Employees' Tips
In March 2018, Congress amended the FLSA to prohibit employers, managers and supervisors from retaining any part of employees' tips—regardless of whether a tip credit is taken.
- Tip Pooling Restriction Eliminated When No Tip Credit Is Taken
The March 2018 amendments and subsequent Department of Labor (DOL) guidance permit employers who do not take a tip credit to allow nonsupervisory employees who are not customarily tipped to participate in tip pools.
- DOL (Largely) Eliminates Its 80/20 Rule
In November 2018, the DOL reissued an opinion letter largely scrapping its “80/20 Rule.” That rule prohibited employers from taking a tip credit for time spent by tipped employees on nontip-producing work related to their tipped occupation if such employees spent more than 20 percent of their time on such non-tipped work. The rule was a practical nightmare because it required employers to track all of their tipped employees' tasks.
In the reissued opinion letter, the DOL said it will not limit the amount of duties “related to a tip-producing occupation that may be performed, so long as they are performed contemporaneously with direct customer-service duties” or “for a reasonable time immediately before or after performing such direct-service duties.” (Whether duties relate to a tip-producing occupation is significant; if an employee has duties unrelated to his tipped position, the employee may have “dual jobs,” and DOL regulations prohibit employers from taking a tip credit for time spent in a nontip-producing job.)
Anticipated Changes
- DOL Proposes New Overtime Rule
Last fall, the DOL announced its plan to issue a new proposed rule governing the minimum salary (currently $23,660 per year) required for most employees to be exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA's executive, administrative and professional exemptions. The DOL recently submitted this proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review, but we do not know what it says. We expect it to contain some increase in the minimum salary threshold, but not as significant an increase as the DOL's 2016 proposal, which would have more than doubled the current minimum salary. (As a reminder, to be exempt from overtime pay, employees must meet certain duties requirements in addition to receiving the minimum salary.)
- DOL Plans to Clarify Its Position on Joint Employment
The DOL also said it intends to issue a rule “to clarify the contours of the joint employment relationship.” Joint employment under the FLSA has significant implications because “when two or more employers jointly employ an employee, the employee's hours worked for all of the joint employers during the workweek are aggregated and considered as one employment, including for purposes of calculating whether overtime pay is due.” Joint employers are jointly and severally liable for FLSA compliance.
In June 2017, the DOL withdrew a previous Administrator's Interpretation that took an expansive position on joint employment. Naturally, employers hope the DOL's proposed rule will limit joint employer liability to businesses with direct and immediate control over employees. Exactly what standard will be endorsed by the DOL remains to be seen.
- DOL Plans to Clarify the “Regular Rate” Regulations
Finally, the DOL has said that it will clarify its regulations relating to the “regular rate” of pay. The regular rate is the rate used to calculate overtime pay owed to nonexempt employees. Some employers are surprised that the “regular rate” includes more than just an employee's standard hourly rate; for example, it includes commissions and nondiscretionary bonuses. It is unclear how the DOL will clarify the regular rate, but any simplification will be a welcome change for employers.
Conclusion
Given the ever-changing legal landscape, and the fact that federal, state and local law may impose additional or different obligations, employers with questions about their wage-and-hour obligations should consult with counsel to ensure they meet applicable legal requirements.
Alicia H. Koepke is a shareholder at Trenam Law's Tampa, Florida office, where she focuses her practice on employment and business law. She serves as co-chair of Trenam Law's hospitality industry group and its commercial litigation practice group. 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
© 2025 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 AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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