Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Telecommuting employees raise special wage and hour issues


Dilbert comic strip for 12 16 2001 from the official Dilbert comic strips archive.



At Overlawyered, Walter Olson asks whether telecommuting is the next wave of wage and hour litigation. He might have a point. Some estimate that as many as 50 million Americans work remotely at least part of the time. Because many of these telecommuters will be non-exempt, how employers track their hours and pay their wages has the potential to cause problems.
Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, non-exempt employees must be paid for all time worked, including overtime for hours in a week worked in excess of 40. Employers must also maintain a tracking system that accurately records this compensable work time. Because telecommuters work outside of the workplace, and often during odd hours, they present special problems for accurately tracking the amount of time spent working.

If your business is going to employ telecommuters, you should take appropriate measures—in a telecommuting policy or contract—to control the time spent working:
  • Employers should clearly communicate to the employee the number of hours expected to be worked each week.
  • Telecommuting employees must be required to accurately track all time spent working. Whatever the system used (pen and paper timesheets, Excel spreadsheets, timekeeping software, or electronic logins or other “punches”), employees must understand that they will only be paid for the amount of time reported.
  • Because telecommuting employees are working without direct supervision, all submitted work should be reviewed by a manager or supervisor to ensure that the work performed correlates to the amount of working time reported. An employer cannot dock time or refuse to pay an employee for time spent working. However, an employer can take away an employee’s ability to telecommute (or otherwise discipline) if the employee proves to be irresponsible or abuses the telecommuting privilege.
Telecommuting may not be “the next big thing” in wage and hour litigation. It raises, however, enough unique wage and hour issues that inattentive employers who ignore these issues risk getting burned.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Time to play Medical Costs Price is Right


As many of you know, last month my son spent 19 days in the Cleveland Clinic. Now that he is home and, most importantly, healthy, I thought we’d have a little fun, while at the same time providing an editorial on the ridiculously high cost of American medical services. It’s time to play Medical Costs Price is Right.

Here are the rules:

  1. Anyone who is 18 years of age or older, a legal U.S. resident, and has a valid email address is eligible to enter.
  2. Current KJK employees and their immediate family members are not eligible to enter.
  3. No purchase of anything (including legal services) is required to enter.
  4. Your bid will be for the total, non-insurance adjusted, cost of a 19-day inpatient stay at the Cleveland Clinic, including all procedures, doctors, tests, and labs:
    • 19 days in the pediatric ward at the Cleveland Clinic Main Campus
    • 1 endoscopy (with general anesthesia)
    • 1 PICC line insertion (with general anesthesia)
    • Professional fees for gastroenterology, surgery, cardiology, and hematology
    • Emergency room fees
    • 3 x-rays
    • 1 ultrasound
    • 2 echocardiograms
    • 16 days of intravenous feedings
    • Laboratory charges for blood work
  5. The closest bid that does not go over the total cost wins.
  6. Bids will be accepted until March 31 at 11:59 p.m.
  7. There are 3 ways to enter:
    • Post a comment with your guess to this blog post. I will not accept any anonymous comments as an entry.
    • Send a reply with your guess to @jonhyman on Twitter, using the hashtag #MedicalCostsPriceIsRight.
    • Post your guess on the wall of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog Facebook Page, also using the hashtag #MedicalCostsPriceIsRight.
  8. Each person is only allowed one entry total, no matter how the guess is submitted. I will disqualify anyone that submits more than one guess.
  9. I will reject any bids that do not follow these rules.
  10. The winning bid must provide a valid address within one week of my announcing of the winner. Otherwise, I reserve the right to select the next closest bid that did not go over the total cost.
  11. If no bids are submitted that do not go over the total cost, I reserve the right to select the closest overall bid to the total cost.

What will the winner get?

IMAG0156

A box of KJK-branded Pro V1s and a KJK-branded water bottle (I never promised a car).

Good luck and happy bidding.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Understanding the legal issues of the NFL labor problems


New nfl logo-1-_938 At 11:59 p.m. Friday night, the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA expired, and the owners locked out its players. We’ve all heard about lockouts before, but what does all this mean? Gabriel Feldman, at the Huffington Post, provides the answer for those unaccustomed to the ins and outs of federal labor law:

A lockout is the “withholding of employment by an employer from its employees for the purpose of either resisting their demands or gaining a concession from them.” In other words, a lockout is when an employer refuses to let workers work, and therefore get paid, as a form of leverage. A lockout is prohibited if it is motivated primarily as an attempt to discourage union membership or interfere with employees’ organizational rights. Lockouts can occur before or after a bargaining impasse has been reached.

Mr. Feldman offers answers to 25 other labor law questions necessary to understand the NFL’s labor strife, including:

  • What is decertification?
  • What is the process for decertification?
  • Why do the players have to break up their union to bring an antitrust suit?
  • And, would the NFL owners be permitted to lock out Brett Favre, and only Brett Favre?

The article is mandatory reading for anyone looking to understand the basics of the complex issues behind the NFL’s ongoing and evolving labor woes.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Friday, March 11, 2011

WIRTW #168 (the Tiger blood … Winning … Whatever … edition)


My god, I tried to avoid Charlie Sheen this week. Yet, here’s my fourth Sheen-related post in the last four days. I guess you can’t avoid the inevitable, especially when there’s $100 million at stake. In fact, Sheen’s been a popular topic around the blawgosphere:

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

Social Media & Workplace Technology

Labor Relations

Wage & Hour

Litigation & Employee Relations


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Thursday, March 10, 2011

I love it when I’m right: Charlie Sheen sues for disability discrimination


Hot off the presses, TMZ has a copy of the lawsuit Charlie Sheen filed against Chuck Lorre and Warner Brothers. And, as I discussed Tuesday, Sheen is alleging disability discrimination.

image imageimage

image

Sheen also alleges retaliation, in addition to various contractual theories. Let the fun begin!

Thanks to Eric Meyer (via twitter), for pointing me to this filing.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

EEOC to review “significant regulations”; do you smell trouble?


According to the EEOC, it is “beginning a new, periodic retrospective review of its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed, to make the EEOC’s regulatory program more effective and/or less burdensome in achieving its regulatory objectives.” Huh? Cutting through the government-speak, I think the EEOC is trying to say that it is looking to rewrite its regulations. Given the current political tenor of this agency, does this concern you? It certainly concerns me.

Do you have suggestions for the EEOC on why a regulation should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed; data on the costs and benefits of a regulation; or how the EEOC could better achieve a regulation’s objective? If so, I suggest you email them to:

Public.Comments.RegulatoryReview@eeoc.gov

You can be sure that 1) employee advocates will be submitting their thoughts, and 2) the agency has its own agenda to further. Employers, make your voice heard in what may be a significant re-writing of the EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, the ADEA, and other civil rights laws.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Charlie Sheen and the National Labor Relations Board


Do you remember Dawnmarie Souza? She was the employee on whose behalf the NLRB issued a complaint (which it later settled), claiming that the National Labor Relations Act protects a Facebook post a concerted activity. According to Time, the company fired Souza for “serious violations,” including “several incidents of allegedly rude behavior.” The company’s discovery of Souza’s Facebook post likening her boss to “various genital parts” was the last straw.

On Monday, CBS fired Charlie Sheen, in part because he made public disparaging comments about his boss. Charlie Sheen is a member of SAG. He also has his own “performance” problems. Should he file an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, based on his own protected, concerted activity—for example, calling his boss a “stupid, stupid little man and a pussy punk”; a “piece of  shit”; a “turd”; and a “clown”?

Or, is Charlie Sheen being able to sue his employer over these comments as ridiculous as Dawnmarie Souza being able to sue hers? Just saying.


Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.