Kentucky Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

Recently, in June of 2010, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio heard a case regarding FLSA unpaid overtime wages for a class action. (See Rotuna v. West Customer Management Group, LLC, 2010 WL 2490989 (N.D.Ohio). In Rotuna, the Plaintiff filed his FLSA overtime case and did so on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated making it into a class action case. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a customer service representative. Id. Plaintiff alleged that he was required to perform unpaid work before clocking in each day in that he had to boot up his computer (and open numerous software programs) every day before he could clock in and thus felt that he was actually working for Defendant before he technically “clocked-in” and thus was entitled to payment for this time that he was at work. Id. A Kentucky overtime and unpaid wages attorney can review your claim to see if you qualify for such compensation.

Continue reading "FLSA Overtime Case Regarding Clocking In at Work." »

Recently, in June of 2010, the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Eighth District heard a case regarding unpaid overtime and nonpayment of wages which the Plaintiff claimed violated the FLSA and Chapter 4111 of the Ohio Revised Code. (See White v. Murtis M. Taylor Multi-Service Center, 2010 WL 23333009 (Ohio App. 8 Dist)). In White, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2002 to 2004. He filed suit in January of 2008. The trial court in September of 2008 granted the summary judgment motion of the Defendant dismissing the case in that it agreed that Plaintiff was exempt from receiving overtime pay pursuant to both the administrative and the learned professional exemptions. Id. This Court reviewed and reversed the lower court’s rulings. The reasons are as follows.

“The FLSA exempts employees who are “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.”” (cites omitted). Id. In order to be exempt under the administrative exemption it must be demonstrated that “1) the employee is compensated at a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week, 2) the employee’s primary duties include the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers, and 3) the employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” (cites omitted). Id.

Continue reading "Overtime Case Regarding Community Support Specialist 1." »

Recently, in April of 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan heard a case regarding unpaid FLSA overtime and nonpayment of wages for outside plant engineers for a telephone company. (See Wlotkowski v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 267 F.R.D. 213 (E.D.MI.)). In Wlotkowski, there were eleven named Plaintiffs. Id. They sued on their behalf and that of others similarly situated. Id. They all held the job title of “manager, Outside Plant Planning Engineering and Design.” This is a class action lawsuit. The Plaintiffs sued claiming they were owed overtime FLSA payments in that Defendant misclassified them as exempt employees. Id.

The case was before the Court on a motion to conditionally certify the proposed class as permitted by the FLSA for purposes of notice and discovery. Id. The Plaintiffs also wanted the names and contact information of those that held the same or similar job within the past 3 years, they wanted this information on a Microsoft Excel format, and they wanted 90 days for the Notice period to have time to send out the notices. The Court agreed to all this and granted Plaintiff’s Motion. The reasoning is as follows.

Continue reading "Overtime Case Regarding Outside Plant Engineers for Telephone Company." »

Recently, in May of 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio heard a case regarding unpaid overtime wages for twenty-four Plaintiffs. (See Baden-Winterwood v. Life time Fitness, Inc., 2010 WL 1882261 (S.D.Ohio). In Baden-Winterwood, one Plaintiff, Ms. Seals, had her case remanded to determine whether her overtime case met the salary level test. Id. “Under the salary level test … employees must be paid a minimum of $455 per week or $23,660 per year to qualify for the exemption from overtime pay.” Id. Ms. Seals was only paid $231/week. Id. Based on this fact, Ms. Seals was not an exempt employee and was misclassified as an overtime-exempt employee. Id.

In Ms. Seals’ instance, she did not work overtime, but the Court held, that she was at least entitled to the pay for the hours she worked over the twenty hours per week for which she was not paid. Id. The Court also had to determine the exact amount of time that Plaintiff was entitled to her unpaid wages. An employee is entitled to paid for every hour worked for an employer.

Continue reading "Overtime – Right to Collect Unpaid Wages via FLSA." »

Recently, in February of 2010, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky heard a case regarding unpaid overtime and nonpayment of wages for travel time. (See Bassett v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 2010 WL 716094 (W.D.Ky.)). In Bassett the Plaintiff worked on a dredging crew from 1987 to 2008. Id. Plaintiff was paid overtime for time he spent traveling to and from work sites and was also given a per diem amount for each day he worked on an outside location. Id. But, if he chose to travel away from the remote work site on a day off, the Defendant did not provide per diem or compensation for what Defendant considered “voluntary travel time.” Id. Thus, Plaintiff has sued Defendant to “recover compensation for time spent in travel on his days off. Plaintiff would travel home on the weekends when he was working at a remote site. He was compensated for his mileage to travel home and back to the work site, but not for the time spent in travel.” Id.

The Fair Labor Standards Act required employers to pay overtime to employees who work in excess of 40 hours. Id. Under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, an employer may be liable for travel if the employer has agreed to compensation under “an express provision of a written or non-written contract in effect, at the time of such activity…” id. The Plaintiff and Defendant had such a contract in effect. But, Defendant points out that “liability exists only if the travel time is considered “work” under the FLSA. Id. And that is only compensated if it is ‘integral and indispensable to the principal activity.’ Id. “Normal travel from home to work is not work time.” Id. This is exactly what Louisville overtime lawyer Andrew Alitowski could explain to you.
The Court noted that the present case was a little different than the average case in that it dealt with ordinary home to work travel that was from remote locations where if the Plaintiff did not decided to spend at this remote location, he would have had to sleep away from home. The Court did note that “travel at the employee’s own option and for his or her sole convenience need not be considered hours worked under the FLSA.” Id.

Continue reading "Louisville Overtime Unpaid Wages - Travel Time" »

Recently, in December of 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky heard a case regarding unpaid overtime wages for a police officer that had to attend AA meetings. (See Todd v. Lexington Fayette Urban County, 2009 WL 4800052 (E.D.Ky.)). In Todd, Mr. Todd was a police officer for the defendant. In March of 2006, while he was at home, Mr. Todd drank a lot of alcohol and some Ambien. Id. He was rushed to the hospital after, he met with his supervisors who gave him time off to attend and complete a sixteen day treatment program. Mr. Todd did so and after he was cleared to go back to work with no restrictions. Id. The defendant took him back but with certain conditions. Id. They required that he attend AA meetings, submit to random urine tests, refrain from taking alcohol, continue to see a psychiatrist and that he should see a doctor about getting off the prescription medications he had been taking. Id. Mr. Todd agreed and he went back to work. Id.

Mr. Todd sued seeking compensation for the time that he spent attending and traveling to and from AA meetings and psychiatric examinations. Id. He tried to argue that since his job required him to do these things that they were work and thus he should have been compensated for them under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (FLSA). Id. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to throw out the Lexington overtime non-payment of wages case.

“The Court defined “work” to mean “physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business.”” (cites omitted). Id. The Supreme Court has stated that even work performed off duty can be considered work under the FLSA. Id.

The Court used a three part test to determine if the hours Mr. Todd spent going to and from and attending the AA meetings qualified as work. Id. The Court stated that it must consider whether: 1) the defendant required these activities, 2) whether they were necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the defendant, and 3) whether they were an indispensable part of Mr. Todd’s primary employment activities. Id. As to factor number 1, the Court held that Mr. Todd was required to attend the AA meetings. But, as to factor number 2, the Court held that Mr. Todd’s attendance to these meetings were not for the benefit of the defendant, but for the benefit of Mr. Todd. Id. It was to get him healthy and to allow him to go back to work. And finally, the Court held that Mr. Todd’s treatment was not an indispensable part of the primary activities of him employment as a police officer. Id. The Court held that sobriety is not a primary activity of a police officer’s employment. Id. Thus, Mr. Todd’s travel to and from the AA meetings and his attendance were not Lexington overtime and thus were not unpaid wages under the FLSA.

Thus, if you are a Lexington Overtime worker and have a question as to whether your attendance to an outside ‘meeting’ should or should not be compensated as wages under the FLSA, you should contact a Lexington overtime lawyer.

If you have been the subject of Lexington Overtime Unpaid Wages for some type of mandatory meeting, please call and speak to a Lexington overtime unpaid wages lawyer at the Law Offices of Andrew S. Alitowski at 888-ASK-ANDREW (275-2637) or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If you are injured…Ask Andrew!!!

If you are an employee in downtown Louisville, you should speak to an overtime attorney to see if you are being paid correctly pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA is what governs an employer to pay an employee the correct wages and salary.

If you work at the ball park, or at a restaurant or even in an office, you should be getting overtime if you are working more than 40 hours per week. Also, depending on your job, the going to the job, or the waiting for a phone call from your employer or the eating at your desk while working, may add up to hours of time that you can claim you are entitled to get paid for that might put you over the 40 hours per work week.

Continue reading "Louisville Overtime Laws" »

As this article will show, it does not matter if you work at a small company selling widgets, or at fortune 500 company, or for a city entity, all employers make mistakes as to whether or not they have to pay overtime to their employers. Recently, a Kentucky Court of Appeals court ruled that Louisville firefighters were entitled to back pay for overtime they worked and were not paid for. So, it just goes to show you, that if you are an employee and you work more than 40 hours a week and you do not get overtime, even if you are told you are a salaried employee, that may not be correct and you may be entitled to overtime compensation. As a Louisville overtime lawyer, I can help you understand your legal rights and help you figure out if you are or are not entitled to overtime compensation.

In the firefighter’s case which can be further read in the Louisville Courier Journal paper at http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090904/NEWS01/909040364/Appeals+court+favors+firefighters+in+back+pay+suit the City of Louisville owes more than 800 firefighters back pay going back 15 years. This ruling will cost the city over $7.6 million plus interest. The city already owes the firefighters $19.7 million for another overtime lawsuit. With interest the city could be looking at having to pay over $50 million back out to the firefighters.

Continue reading "Overtime Payment to Firefighters in Louisville" »