Texas Employment Law Update : Texas Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Russell D. Cawyer : Kelly Hart & Hallman Law Firm : Dallas TX Labor Updates

Last year I wrote about the risks associated with providing company issued cell-phones or PDA's to nonexempt employees.  Since that post, there continues to be lawsuits filed seeking unpaid overtime for the off-the-clock time nonexempt employees spend reading and responding to work-related e-mails.  The most recent example is that of a police sergeant for the City of Chicago who filed a collective action on behalf of all similarly-situated police officers who were provided PDA's by the City and who were required to review and respond to work-related e-mails after hours.  A copy of the complaint can be downloaded here.

Company's providing their non-exempt employees with PDA's should carefully review their policies and procedures to ensure that they have defensible positions in the event they are confronted with an overtime suit based on the time spent reading and responding to e-mails after hours.  Some considerations that I proposed last summer include:

• Do not provide nonexempt, hourly employees with company issued phones capable of reading or responding to e-mail (i.e., smart phones). 
• Purchase a technology solution that captures the amount of time the user spends reading and responding to e-mail and pay nonexempt employees for that time.
• If the employer does not intend to pay for this off-hours review of e-mails, it should clearly set out its expectations that employees should not read and review those messages outside regular work hours.  For example, implement policies that prohibit employees from reading and responding to e-mails outside of regular working hours; require employees to leave company issued smart-phones at work; require employees to program the smart phones to turn themselves off during non-working hours. 
• Limit the employees that are provided with company issued cellphones to those who have a legitimate business need to be routinely contacted outside of business hours and limit that outside contact for matters where it is necessary.
• Pay employees who submit time for the non-business hours review of e-mail and then discipline the employee for violating the employer's policy prohibiting business use of company cellphones outside working hours (if the employer has implemented such a policy).

Employers need to be proactive to ensure that the efficiencies provided by technology are not swallowed by the inconvenience and costs associated in the defense of overtime lawsuits

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Lawyers prosecuting and defending wage and hour misclassification cases (i.e., exempt/nonexempt and employee/contractor) will emphasize how fact intensive these inquiries can be.   The importance of factual distinctions in litigating misclassification cases is demonstrated by two cases recently decided by the Fifth Circuit.  In Cromwell v. Driftwood Electrical Contractors, a panel of the court of appeals held that workers performing cable splicing work in New Orleans were not independent contractors and were employees entitled to overtime.  Contrast Cromwell with Thibault v. BellSouth, where a different panel of the court concluded that a cable splicer performing the same work in the same geographic area under similar circumstances, was an independent contractor not entitled to overtime.  This table summarizes some of the relevant facts in Cromwell and Thibault. 

Despite the similarities of the work, subtle differences in the facts resulted in different outcomes.  In misclassification cases over overtime exemptions or employee/contractor status, facts matter.

Full copies of Cromwell and Thibault can be accessed here and here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In another cable splicer misclassification case arising in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a trial court decision that Louis Thibault was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Therefore, he was not entitled to overtime under the FLSA.

Thibault owned a business in his home state of Delaware selling picnic tables, storage tables and golf carts. He also owned several rental properties and realized a small income from racing automobiles.  When hurricane Katrina seriously damaged the telephone infrastructure of BellSouth’s grid, Thibault and his friend Bill Peek, drove their RV to Louisiana to perform splicing work on behalf of BellSouth to rebuild the grid.  Peek was an experienced cable splicer but Thibault had never worked as a splicer.  He did have prior experience as a naval aircraft mechanic and according to him easily learned mechanical tasks if shown how to do the task.  Peek taught Thibault the basics of splicing in one evening and Thibault was able to learn the remainder of what he needed to know on the job.

Once in New Orleans, Thibault and Peek worked 14 days shifts (13 days on with 1 day off) 84 hours per week; received a fixed hourly wage ($68 per hour) and were required to provide their own trucks and tools.  BellSouth decided what jobs would be done daily and assigned BellSouth contractors to distribute the assignments. Thibault received his daily assignments from the BellSouth contractor. 

Thibault had intended to work 6-7 months and then return to his home in Delaware. After only three months; however, he was laid off. He earned $51,628 during the three month period. After he was released he sued BellSouth and its contractors for unpaid overtime claiming he was an employee rather than an independent contractor. The trial court concluded that Thibault was an independent contractor and granted summary judgment for the defendants.

A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Applying the economic realities test, the panel found Thibault was not an employee. Significant to its decision was the fact that:

• Thibault owned his own business and therefore did not work exclusively for BellSouth and its contractors;
• Thibault intended to work on 7-8 months and then return to Delaware;
• Defendants considered him an independent contract and many other splicers also considered themselves contractors;
• Splicing required little skill and initiative as evidenced by the fact Thibault learned it in one evening;
• Thibault continued to oversee his primary business during the three months he performed splicing work.

In the panel’s opinion, there was insufficient evidence in the summary judgment record to create a genuine issue of material fact that Thibault was an employee. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Effective July 29, 2010, the City of Austin requires employers in the construction industry to provide at least ten minute rest breaks to their employees for every four hours worked.  The ordinance applies to all employers engaged in work associated with construction projects including alteration, demolition, building excavation, maintenance and renovation of structures or sites.

Employees working less than 3.5 hours or who spend more than half of the work time engaged in indoor administrative or secretarial activities are not required to be provided rest breaks. Rest breaks required under this ordinance must be completely free from all working activities and cannot be combined with an employee's regular meal period.  Employers are also required to display postings describing the rest break requirements at every construction site in English and Spanish.  The City will prescribe the size, content and locations of signs required by the ordinance under separate rule.

The ordinance provides for a civil penalty of up to $500 for each violation (but only after the employer continues to violate the ordinance after being notified of the offense, in writing, by a City representative).  The ordinance also carries Class C misdemeanor criminal penalties for persons failing to provide required rest breaks and for failing to post required signage.  Strict liability applies to violations and each day that a violation occurs is a separate offense.  Enforcement will be handled on a complaint basis.  The law provides a City enforcement mechanism but does not expressly provide for a private right of action.

A draft of the ordinance can be accessed here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The exercise of sound judgment and the uniform, mechanical application of employment policies are not always synonymous. Every FMLA-covered employer in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana should be interested in the Fifth Circuit’s most recent FMLA case resulting from an employer’s uniform application of its internal FMLA reporting policy. In Saenz v. Harlington Medical Center, the Court decided, what it characterized as a “close question,” that an employee does not necessarily have to comply with an employer’s internally created, heighted notice provision to maintain FMLA protection and that in some cases the employee need only comply with the FMLA’s more relaxed notice requirements. 

The plaintiff in Saenz, suffered from partial complex epileptic seizures that caused her to lose consciousness and become unable to perform her job. This normally incapacitated her for two days at time. Saenz requested and was granted intermittent FMLA leave for this seizure condition. Her employer, Harlingen Medical Center (“Harlingen”) had a policy that required employees to contact its FMLA administrator not later than two days after each leave period pursuant to the intermittent leave request. Under Harlingen’s policy, failure to provide the required notice could lead to a loss of FMLA protection. In the following six months, Saenz used intermittent FMLA leave eleven times and provided the required notice each time.

Thereafter, Saenz began suffering from depression and bipolar disorder that caused hallucination and disorientation. She was admitted the hospital and later committed to a behavioral center for three days of evaluation. Saenz’s mother contacted her daughter’s supervisor to advise of the symptoms and that Saenz would not be reporting to work.   While at the emergency room (in the same hospital where she normally worked), another Harlingen supervisor personally visited Saenz and observed some of her treatment. In the nine days during which she was incapacitated, Saenz was hospitalized, placed under a judicially created guardianship and eventually released into her mother’s care.

Ten days after first becoming incapacitated, Saenz called Harlingen’s FMLA administrator to advise of her depression/bipolar diagnoses and to discuss the five work absences she suffered as a result of her condition. She also requested approval for intermittent FMLA for these new conditions. Eight days later, Saenz received two letters. The first was from the FMLA administrator advising her that her intermittent FMLA leave request was being processed. The second letter was from Harlingen advising her that her employment was being terminated for excessive absenteeism. The termination letter expressly referenced her failure to comply with the two-day call-in policy. 

Saenz sued Harlingen for violations of the FMLA. The trial court dismissed the case holding that that factual issues existed as to whether the employer could rely on its heightened notice provision, namely, the employer’s actual notice of the severity of Saenz’s condition and the lack of evidence that Saenz affirmatively refused to comply with the company’s heightened noticed provisions. The court of appeals also found that fact issues existed as to whether Saenz gave sufficient notice of her need for leave as soon as practicable as required by the FMLA because the evidence showed that her mother told two supervisors of her hallucinations; at least one supervisor visited her in the hospital emergency room and observed Saenz’s treatment; and her mother stayed in constant contact with the employer as to the status of Saenz’s treatment. Based on these facts and this evidentiary record, the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link