Readers will recall that, in April 2011, the U.S. Labor Department declined to adopt an interpretation proposed in 2008 that would have acknowledged the federal Fair Labor Standards Act overtime-exempt status of employees doing the typical work of service writers, service advisors, etc. in automobile dealerships and truck dealerships.  Prospects were that USDOL would reverse an enforcement policy of two decades' standing and would begin challenging the FLSA Section 13(b)(10)(A) overtime exemption as applied to these workers.

However, Congress's 2012 Department of Labor Appropriations Act specifically prohibited USDOL from using any appropriated funds for this purpose.  Later comments by a U.S. Wage and Hour Division investigator led us to conclude that, unless Congress renewed this limitation in 2013 appropriations, dealerships should anticipate USDOL attacks on their treating these employees as being overtime-exempt.

Although the 2013 appropriation does not expressly refer to such a restriction, we conclude that the prohibition has been extended.  Among other things, Division F, Section 1105 of the recent appropriation calls for the continuation through September 30, 2013 of "the requirements, authorities, conditions, limitations, and other provisions" of the 2012 law.  Another example is Section 1104's statement that money allocated for 2013 may not be used to "initiate or resume any project or activity for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available" during the federal government's 2012 fiscal year.

Even if USDOL is unable to pursue such claims, current or former service writers or similar employees remain free to argue against overtime-exempt status in their own FLSA lawsuits.  And, as we said previously, employers embroiled in these lawsuits should be alert for any signs that USDOL is extending background assistance to these individuals.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

In April 2011, the U.S. Labor Department disavowed its 24-year-long acknowledgment that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 13(b)(10)(A) overtime exemption applies to automobile-dealership employees doing the typical work of service writers, service advisors, etc.  Instead, USDOL seemed to embrace the view that the absence of a literal reference to these kinds of employees in Section 13(b)(10)(A)'s "salesman, partsman, or mechanic" formulation meant that they are subject to the FLSA's overtime requirement.

USDOL said what it did despite the fact that, since the 1970s, five federal courts had looked at the same language and ruled the other way.  In fact, as of April 2011, every reported court decision to consider the issue determined that dealership employees who are selling service and parts to customers are within the exemption.  These courts concluded that this outcome was entirely consistent with Congress's intent.

Now, two additional rulings have continued this trend, including that these newest ones have done so notwithstanding USDOL's comments.

In Navarro v. Mercedes Benz of Encino (link to reproduction below), Fisher & Phillips LLP persuaded the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss an FLSA overtime claim brought by several Service Advisors.  After evaluating USDOL's April 2011 statements, the court concluded that those views are "unreasonable" and unworthy of deference.  Instead, the court said, "Service Advisors .  .  . are functionally equivalent to salesmen and mechanics and are similarly responsible for the 'selling and servicing' of automobiles."  It ruled that the Service Advisors were exempt from FLSA overtime.

A few days later, the Montana Supreme Court concluded that the words of Section 13(b)(10)(A) itself demonstrate that it applies to the kind of work done by Service Advisors, Service Writers, and the like.  In Thompson v. J.C. Billion, Inc. (link to reproduction below), the court determined that USDOL interpretative material "conflicts with the plain wording of [Section 13(b)(10)(A)] by defining employees who are exempt from overtime as 'salesman' more narrowly than the statute does."  The court determined that "a plain, grammatical reading of [Section 13(b)(10)(A)] makes clear that the term 'salesman' encompasses a broader category of employees than those only engaged in selling vehicles," and that, "under a plain reading, the statute clearly exempts 'any salesman . . . primarily engaged in servicing . . . automobiles."

These decisions further bolster the decades-old proposition that the exemption applies to a dealership employee whose primary duty is to do such things as greet customers and obtain information regarding their service or repair concerns; diagnose the mechanical condition of the vehicle; attempt to sell appropriate diagnostic or repair services; provide estimates for services or repairs; write orders for work authorized by the customer; assign the work to various employees; direct and check on the work of mechanics; and communicate with customers regarding the status of their vehicles.  Only time will tell whether USDOL will continue to swim against the tide of these court rulings.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Navarro v. Mercedes Benz of Encino.pdf (397.31 kb)

Thompson v. J.C. Billion, Inc.pdf (146.23 kb)

Readers will recall our January post concerning the U.S. Labor Department's announced intention to "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."  As we said then, this is likely to be a precursor to a renewed "Right to Know" initiative.

USDOL did not publish the actual proposed survey along with its January 11 Federal Register entry.  On January 14, we requested a copy from the official to whom USDOL directed that these requests be sent (link to reproduction below).  As of this writing, 38 days later, and after appreciably more than half of the comment period has elapsed, we have received neither a copy nor any other response.

The end of the comment period is March 12, 2013, 21 days from now.  As matters stand, one may reasonably conclude that the public has had no adequate, fully-informed opportunity to evaluate the proposed survey or to formulate and submit substantive comments.

We are led to wonder whether our experience is representative of the public's at-large.  If you requested a copy of the proposed information collection also, please respond to our poll to let us know whether you received one.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Request For Proposed Information Collection.pdf (62.35 kb)

As we speculated in November, the U.S. Labor Department apparently does intend to reinvigorate its so-called "Right to Know" initiative.  This vague and ambiguous proposal first surfaced in 2010 but was eventually shelved.  USDOL has now announced its intention to conduct a survey "to collect information about employment experiences and workers' knowledge of basic employment laws and rules so as to better understand employees' experience with worker misclassification."

"Right to Know" About What?

In 2010, USDOL said that such a rule would require among other things the "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the [federal Fair Labor Standards Act]."  Many wondered at the time whether the provision would extend to disclosures about management's decisions as to which employees are considered to be exempt from the FLSA's pay requirements, and Wage and Hour Division officials seemed to be avoiding the question.  USDOL's recent announcement says, "Worker misclassification can be understood as the practice, intended or unintended, of improperly treating a worker who is an employee under the applicable law as in a work status other than an employee (i.e., an independent contractor)."  For the moment, then, the focus appears to be upon erroneously deeming workers to be independent contractors or incorrectly considering them to be functioning in some other non-employee capacity.

The announcement also provides at least some hint of what a "Right to Know" regulation will entail.  USDOL notes that "federal labor laws" do not require an employer to:

♦   Inform workers of their status as employees or non-employees;

♦   Provide the basis for these status determinations; or

♦   Notify the workers of their hours worked, pay rates, and wages paid.

Presumably, any "Right to Know" rules will obligate employers to provide this information, although to whom, when, in what form, to what extent, and at what level of detail remain unknown.

What Happens Next?

USDOL seeks comments on its proposed information collection by March 12, 2013.  However, it did not publish the actual information request.  Instead, a copy of this document must be obtained separately, raising the question of whether USDOL's announcement complies with the notice requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.  In any event, we have asked for a copy and will post the document when we receive it.

The notice specifies 30 months as the evaluation timeframe but then says in the same sentence that the period ends in March 2014.  Perhaps USDOL will later clarify which of these is its intention.

Businesses and other organizations (particularly those whose operational models include the use of non-employee workers) would be wise to take the opportunity to weigh-in on this proposed survey, to participate in the survey when it occurs, and otherwise to follow these developments closely.  It is foreseeable that the actual information collection might be orchestrated so as to provide a predicate for unprecedented new requirements.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Readers will recall our April 2011 newsletter and blog post regarding the U.S. Labor Department's having declined to recognize the overtime-exempt status of vehicle-dealership employees typically called "service writers", "service advisors", or "service salesmen".  In so doing, USDOL appears to have revived its previously-abandoned interpretation that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 13(b)(10)(A) does not apply to employees whose role is to diagnose the mechanical condition of or to determine service needed by a vehicle, to assign service work to employees, to monitor their progress and results, and otherwise to take responsibility for the service work.

Dealerships across the nation were understandably alarmed by the prospects that USDOL would resume challenging the exempt status of these employees for the first time in almost 24 years.  However, Congress's 2012 USDOL appropriation prohibited the agency from devoting any of its funding to such efforts.

A U.S. Wage and Hour Division investigator recently told a dealership that its service writers are non-exempt, but that USDOL is temporarily precluded from doing anything about it.  The investigator said that USDOL will "enforce the law" in this respect once it is able to do so.

We take from this that, unless Congress renews its limitation in the 2013 USDOL appropriation, the Wage and Hour Division fully intends to attack the Section 13(b)(10)(A)-exempt status of these kinds of employees.  Employers who are unwilling to entrust things to the political process in a presidential-election year might want to consider implementing a pay plan meeting the requirements for the FLSA's Section 7(i) overtime exception for commission-paid employees of a retail or service establishment.  We have summarized this provision in an earlier post.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Various websites now provide questionnaires, checklists, programs, decision-trees, and so on to guide an employer in trying to decide who qualifies as an exempt executive, administrative, professional, or outside-sales employee under the defining federal Fair Labor Standards Act regulations.  These tools are fine as far as they go, but their usefulness is normally very limited.

No such approach (whether online or otherwise) can substitute for the indispensable analysis and judgment required to determine whether one of these "white collar" exemptions applies.  Typically, these systems simply break-down the regulations into their component parts and then take the responder through them one-by-one, asking him or her to indicate whether the requirement is satisfied by clicking "Yes" or "No" or some other abbreviated answer.

You Need More Than An Outline

But many important regulatory requirements and concepts are vague or ambiguous and do not lend themselves to such quick/easy/short responses.  Moreover, most of the controlling principles have been the subjects of years or even decades of definition, refinement, explanation, elaboration, and application in numerous court decisions and in U.S. Labor Department interpretations and opinions.  These authorities have often revealed or established exemption nuances, variations, and pitfalls that are by no means readily apparent in the regulations themselves, and some of which do not actually appear in the regulations at all.  A person who can effectively bring to bear the knowledge, expertise, and experience necessary to apply the exemption rules probably has no need for an online questionnaire in the first place.

And sometimes the questions raised in or statements made by these online resources can be inaccurate and potentially misleading.  For example, even the U.S. Labor Department's "FLSA Overtime Security Advisor" asks as to the executive exemption, "Does the employee's primary duty involve management . . .."  [Emphasis added].  However, the regulatory requirement is that an exempt executive employee's primary duty must BE management; this is not a trivial difference.

Furthermore, while these websites often provide what might seem to be definitive and reliable answers, employers should not take these statements at face value.  As an illustration, after a series of exemption-supporting responses, USDOL's Advisor pronounces that the employee "appears" to meet an exemption's duties-related tests.  Even if an employer could someday prove that it had relied upon the Advisor in deciding that an employee was exempt, one likely counter-argument will be that management's Advisor responses did not reflect the proper application of the relevant legal principles to the actual content of the employee's work.

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"

No software magic is at work in these online resources.  Their results do not transcend the user's own, independent and essential understanding and analysis of each determining factor and fact.  The best these tools can do is serve as preliminary, very-general guidance to an evaluator who is undertaking:

♦   To elicit all of the relevant, current, clear, accurate, detailed, and specific facts and circumstances from someone who thoroughly understands the job in question;

♦   To evaluate those facts and circumstances against, and with a thorough knowledge and understanding of, the controlling legal tests, requirements, and related refinements and interpretations; and

♦   To make his or her own, independent judgments about what exemption-related conclusions should be drawn from this process.

Finally, remember that state and local laws might not recognize all of the exemptions available under the FLSA or might recognize them only on different or more-limited terms.  Consequently, FLSA-focused online resources do not necessarily address whether an employee is also exempt from wage-hour requirements imposed by a different jurisdiction.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

Various news items published last Friday afternoon intimated that a part of the 2012 federal omnibus appropriations law now exempts automobile-dealership service writers and similar employees^* from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements.  Those reports appear to have been mistaken so far as we can tell, but the spending provision does contain at least some good news in this respect.

As we noted previously, in April the U.S. Labor Department decided against acknowledging the FLSA Section 13(b)(10)(A) overtime-exempt status of dealership employees doing the typical work of service writers, service advisors, etc.  DOL thus revived its previously-disavowed interpretation that "[e]mployees variously described as service manager, service writer, service advisor, or service salesman who are not themselves primarily engaged in the work of a salesman, partsman, or mechanic as described above are not exempt under section 13(b)(10)."  29 C.F.R. § 779.372(c)(4)(emphasis added).

Section 113 of Friday's "Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 2012" says, "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary [of Labor] to administer or enforce 29 CFR 779.372(c)(4)."  This directive does not change the Section 13(b)(10)(A) exemption itself, but the provision does preclude DOL from devoting any of its 2012 funding to efforts to "administer or enforce" this service-writer interpretation.

However, Section 113 does not prevent current or former service writers or similar employees from pushing DOL's service-writer interpretation in support of their own FLSA overtime lawsuits.  Whether and to what extent DOL officials might explore the limits of Section 113's "administer or enforce" language by offering background assistance to any such individuals remains to be seen.  Employers facing lawsuits of this kind should certainly be alert for signs that DOL is doing so.

^*  At least one such report erroneously referred to "service technicians".

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

A bill introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 1747) would significantly expand the scope of the current exemption for certain computer employees that is found at Section 13(a)(17) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  The proposed "Computer Professional Update" Act (or "CPU" Act) was submitted by North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan and three co-sponsors.  It is now pending in the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

A Little History

The FLSA exemption status of employees in the computer field has been a bone of contention since the mid-1960s.  The application of the FLSA's executive exemption in the computer field has been no different over that time, but for many years the U.S. Labor Department took a particularly narrow view of what sort of computer-oriented work qualified for the FLSA's administrative or professional exemption.

Then, in 1990, Congress directed DOL to issue regulations under which computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly-skilled workers could be exempt.  DOL finalized professional-exemption regulations for this purpose in 1992.  However, the only employees in the running for exempt status were those meeting these descriptions whose work required "theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering . .  .."

One might infer that Congress was not satisfied with DOL's efforts, because in 1996 it amended the FLSA itself to add Section 13(a)(17) (link to reproduction below).  Among other things, Congress's own version did not require "theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge . . ..".  In 2004, DOL modified the regulatory exemption to harmonize it with the statutory one.

Still Behind The Times

The rapid evolution of computer technology, the Internet, and other areas has arguably left even these most-recent exemptions in the dust.  For example, to a considerable extent their definitions of exempt work incorporate outmoded terms and concepts dating to the early 1990s or even before.  Many believe that the exemptions, along with DOL's restrictive interpretations of them, fail to take into account substantial changes in the computer field and the occupations it encompasses.

The CPU Act would address this in a variety of ways.  For instance, unlike the present versions, it would incorporate "information technology" occupations and would expressly refer to work involving things such as databases, the Internet, intranets, networks, debugging, components and hardware, security, configuration, and systems integration and continuity.  It would also create an exemption for employees who are "directing the work of individuals" performing exempt computer or information-technology duties; presumably this would apply more-broadly than does the FLSA's executive exemption.

Even if the CPU Act becomes law, states and other jurisdictions need not provide such an exemption from their own minimum-wage and overtime laws.  Moreover, a jurisdiction that has its own computer-employee exemption would not be required to harmonize it with the CPU Act.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

FLSA Section 13 a 17.pdf (20.46 kb)

Among the famous last words in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act Hall of Infamy are, "Let's write the job descriptions to make them exempt." The problem is this:  Job descriptions do not "make" employees exempt.

Instead, most FLSA exemptions apply, if at all, only on an employee-by-employee basis according to the nature of each individual's actual work as judged against specific and often-detailed requirements.^*  Moreover, in any U.S. Labor Department investigation or in a lawsuit, the legal burden of establishing that a person is exempt rests with the employer, who must prove that each exemption requirement is met as to any individuals whose exempt status has been challenged.  The Labor Department and the courts construe FLSA exemptions very narrowly, and doubt is often resolved against the employer.

So no job description, irrespective of what it says, will bring about exempt status for an employee whose actual work does not meet the legal tests.  Does this mean that job descriptions are irrelevant to FLSA exemptions?  Absolutely not!

Job descriptions that are vague, ambiguous, jargonized, out-of-date, or poorly-written can lead to ill-considered and incorrect decisions about who is or is not exempt.  Those that are puffed-up for ego purposes, or that are unrealistic or inaccurate, can have a similar impact.  Flawed job descriptions can also seriously undercut efforts to defend against legal challenges to exempt status.

On the other hand, job descriptions that are accurate, specific, realistic, clear, well-crafted, and current can contribute appreciably to management's proper analysis of whether one exemption or another may legally be applied to an employee.  They can also play a significant role in defending against a claim that employees should not have been treated as exempt.

For example, one requirement for the FLSA's executive exemption is that an employee who has no authority to hire or fire must at least make suggestions and recommendations about those actions (or about other status changes) that carry "particular weight".  29 C.F.R. 541.100(a)(4).  The fact that making these suggestions and recommendations is truly part of an employee's job helps to show that they are indeed given "particular weight", and listing these responsibilities in the job description is some evidence that they really are part of the individual's work.  29 C.F.R. 541.105; 69 Fed.Reg. 22122, 22135 (April 23, 2004).

The bottom-line is that job descriptions standing alone are not enough to establish or refute exempt status, but poor ones are useless (or worse), whereas good ones are useful.

      ^*  Of course, some FLSA exemptions also impose compensation requirements.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.

The U.S. Labor Department's most-recent regulatory agenda now targets April 2011 for the release of a proposed rule that DOL says is intended to, among other things, "update [federal Fair Labor Standards Act] recordkeeping requirements to foster more openness and transparency in demonstrating employers' compliance with applicable requirements to their workers, to better ensure compliance by regulated entities, and to assist in enforcement."  Elsewhere, DOL has stated that this forthcoming "Right To Know Under The Fair Labor Standards Act" would address "notification of workers' status as employees or some other status such as independent contractors, and whether that worker is entitled to the protections of the FLSA."  The proposal would "also explore requiring employers to provide a wage statement each pay period to their employees," apparently so as to convey to employees "how their pay is computed."

These current notifications include even fewer specifics than their predecessors, about which we reported in May.  At that time, DOL expressed an intention to require employers to notify workers of their FLSA rights in some unidentified way and to provide unspecified "information" about hours worked and wage computations.
 
DOL also said earlier that employers would be required to prepare some sort of "classification analysis" for a worker whom the employer will "exclude . . . from the FLSA's coverage," to disclose this analysis to the worker, and to provide the analysis to a DOL investigator upon "request."  Judging from the latest notices, this is still on the table.  It is less than transparent whether such an analysis would be restricted to situations in which a worker is categorized as being or not being an employee for FLSA purposes.  For example, there is concern that it will also extend to an employer's decisions about which employees it will treat as being exempt from the FLSA's pay requirements.  At a May "Stakeholder Forum" in Washington, D.C., DOL officials declined to address this question.

We continue to recommend that employers remain on the alert for this proposed rule.  When it is published, employers should evaluate each provision in detail, should carefully consider all potential ramifications, and should be prepared to submit suggestions, comments, and any objections.  In light of the recent "Bridge to Justice" initiative, there is every reason to anticipate that information compiled under the requirements of any final regulation will wind up in the hands of claimants and their lawyers.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.