Category: Employment Law

FLSA Regular Rate of Pay

Calculating the Overtime “Regular Rate”

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime if they work enough hours (usually over 40/week). Overtime must be paid at one-and-a-half times the employee’s “regular rate” of pay. Unfortunately, it’s not always so easy to calculate the employee’s regular rate.

Here we’ll look at some of the most common regular rate calculation issues. This article focuses on the federal FLSA. State overtime requirements often borrow the same overtime calculation rules, but state requirements may vary.

Defining the “Regular Rate” of Pay

The FLSA’s statutory definition of “regular rate” is almost as long as this blog post. The first few words define “regular rate” to include “all remuneration paid” to the employee. However, the next several hundred words identify exclusions.

More briefly stated than in the statute itself, these exclusions include certain:

  • sums paid as gifts;
  • payments made for occasional periods when no work is performed;
  • reimbursements for traveling expenses;
  • discretionary bonuses;
  • profit sharing;
  • payments made for employee benefits;
  • additional compensation for hours worked beyond a specified number in a day/week or outside the normal workday/week;
  • premium compensation for work on weekends or holidays; and
  • income derived from qualifying stock transactions.

Many of the items below are more nuanced than described here. So, don’t automatically exclude a payment just because it looks like it might fit on this list.

Significantly, the “regular rate” is an hourly rate. It’s always an hourly rate, even for employees who aren’t paid hourly. Many non-hourly employees are exempt, so it’s not necessary to calculate their regular rate. But some salaried employees are eligible for overtime. And some hourly employees also receive compensation beyond their base pay that counts toward their regular rate for overtime purpose.

When the Regular Rate Differs from the Base Hourly Rate

If a non-exempt employee receives any compensation other than their base hourly rate, the employer must consider what else to include in the regular rate when calculating overtime.

The regular hourly rate of pay of an employee is determined by dividing their total remuneration for employment (except statutory exclusions) in any workweek by the total number of hours actually worked in that workweek.

Let’s look at how this work in several common situations.

Salaried Employees

If an employee’s only form of compensation is a fixed salary per week, then you compute the regular rate by dividing the salary by the number of hours that the employer reasonably intends the salary to compensate. So, if the employee is paid $800 per week to work 40 hours, the regular rate is $20 per hour. If that employee works 50 hours in a given week, then they would need to receive total pay of $1100 [$800 base salary for the first 40 hours and $300 ($20 x 1.5 x 10 hours) for the overtime].

Hourly Wage Plus Commissions

Some hourly employees are eligible to receive commissions or incentive bonuses based on a percentage of sales or another fixed formula. This additional compensation factors into the employee’s regular rate for overtime calculations.

The calculation may be relatively straightforward where commissions are paid weekly. Then you just divide the commissions for the week by the number of hours worked in the week and add it to the base hourly rate earned in the week to determine the overtime regular rate. Take for example a non-exempt employee who works 45 hours with a $10/hour base rate. The employee also earns $90 in commissions in a given week. Their regular rate in that workweek is $12 [the $10 base rate plus $2 ($90 in commissions / 45 hours worked)]. Their total compensation for the week, including overtime, must be $570 [$480 ($12 x 40 hours regular time pay, including commissions) + $90 (5 overtime hours x $12 regular rate, including commissions x 1.5)].

If, however, commissions are not earned and paid weekly, the calculation becomes more complicated. If the amount of commissions earned cannot be determined until after the regular pay day for the workweek in which the employee performed the work that results in the commissions, then the commissions don’t have to be included in the regular rate and paid as overtime on that payday. But, once determined, the commissions will eventually affect the regular rate, and may require additional overtime calculations and payments. The U.S. Department of Labor has specific rules for calculating the regular rate and allocating the commissions over earlier workweeks in order to fully compensate the employee for overtime earned.

Employees Working at Two or More Rates

Sometimes employees receive different rates of pay depending on what jobs or tasks they perform. By default, the regular rate is then determined by taking the weighted average of the separate rates earned. This means that the regular rate of an employee who spends 30 hours working for $15 and 20 hours working for $10 would be $13 per hour ($450 + $200 / 50). So the employee’s total compensation would be $715 [$450 + $200 + $65 (the half-time portion of the 10 overtime hours, since the regular time portion is already included here)].

An employer may, however, have the option of instead paying overtime calculated at 1.5 times the rate for the specific work performed during the overtime hours. Using the previous example, if the employee had worked all of the overtime in the job that pays $10 per hour base, then the regular rate for the overtime could be just the $10, rather than the weighted average wage. But the employee would have to apply this approach consistently, such that if the employee’s overtime (i.e., the last hours worked in the week beyond 40) were in the higher paying job, then the regular rate would be $15 rather than $10. For the employer to use this approach, the employee must know of and be willing to work under this overtime structure before beginning the work.

The second method might be disallowed if an employer uses it to systematically reduce an employee’s overtime pay. This might be case where the employer always requires the employee to perform the lower-rate work at the end of the week. Then the employer may need to revert to the weighted average method.

Many More Regular Rate Scenarios Exist

These are just some of the most common methods for determining regular rate of pay for FLSA overtime purposes. The U.S. Department of Labor has permitted various other exceptions and approaches, either based on direct statutory instructions or as enforcement practicalities. Employers facing non-routine overtime issues should confer with experienced legal counsel. Mistakes in overtime calculations can lead to significant underpayment liability for employers, including liquidated damages and potentially attorneys’ fees.

EEOC Discrimination Charges in 2017

EEOC Discrimination Charges in 2017

On January 25, 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released its Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement and Litigation Data. The agency reports that it resolved 99,109 EEOC discrimination charges in the year ending September 30, 2017. The EEOC had a remaining charge workload of 61,621, the lowest year-end level in 10 years.

Among other raw statistics of note, the EEOC received over 540,000 calls and 155,000+ inquiries in its field offices.

The EEOC recovered nearly $400 million on behalf of victims of alleged discrimination.

Bases of EEOC Discrimination Charges

In FY 2017, retaliation was the most common grounds for EEOC discrimination charges. Nearly 50% of all charges included an allegation of retaliation (48.8%).

Three protected characteristics each appeared in nearly one-third of all FY 2017 EEOC discrimination charges: race (33.9%), disability (31.9%), and sex (30.4%). Age discrimination was the next most prevalent allegation, appearing in 21.8% of charges.

Five other categories protected by laws that the EEOC enforces each appeared in less than 10% of the charges:

  • National Origin – 9.8%
  • Religion – 4.1%
  • Color – 3.8%
  • Equal Pay Act – 1.2%
  • Genetic Information – 0.2%

Sexual Harassment Charges

Sexual harassment is only one subset of the 25,605 sex discrimination charges that the EEOC received in FY 2017. Most cases were claims of disparate treatment (favoring one sex over the other), such as regarding employment, promotion, or compensation.

The EEOC received 6,696 charges alleging sexual harassment. It obtained $46.3 million on behalf of sexual harassment victims.

Perhaps surprising given recent media attention, the number of charges alleging sexual harassment declined in FY 2017. They have steadily gone down over the past decade. But the Harvey Weinstein report (followed by others) did not break until the end of the last EEOC fiscal year. So, it will be interested to revisit this statistic next year.

Other Trends in EEOC Discrimination Charges

The EEOC received fewer charges in FY 2017 (84,254) than it had in any year since FY 2007 (82,792). Last year’s total was down 7.9% from FY 2016.

The number of charges alleging discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, religion, age, and genetic information all reached the lowest levels in at least 5, and in several cases 10+, years.

On the other hand, EEOC charges alleging discrimination based on color reached a 20-year high. Retaliation claims reached their highest proportion of total claims during that same period, continuing a steady upward trend. Disability claims also continued to increase as a percentage of total EEOC discrimination charges.

Geographic Origin of EEOC Cases

Employees of all states may file discrimination charges with the EEOC. In many states, employees also have the option of filing with a state agency that investigates claims under state employment discrimination laws. The varying procedures and substantive grounds for claims under respective state laws may affect the frequency of EEOC cases in a state. The EEOC’s reported statistics do not include charges filed with state or local Fair Employment Practices Agencies.

In FY 2017, 10.5% of all EEOC discrimination charges were filed in Texas. Florida had the second most charges at 8.1%. California was third with 6.4% of charges. These are the also the three most populous states (though California has by far the most residents).

Despite being the fourth largest state by population, New York only accounted for the 8th most EEOC discrimination charges (4.4%). In part, this may be because many employees pursue their claims under the New York State or New York City Human Rights Laws instead of federal law.

EEOC Litigation

Though it has litigation authority, the EEOC does not go to court over many of the charges it receives. The agency filed 184 discrimination lawsuits in FY 2017. This included 124 cases alleging discrimination against an individual, 30 cases involving multiple victims or discriminatory policies, and 30 systemic discrimination cases. The EEOC reports a “successful outcome” in 90.8% of its resolved cases. The agency ended the year with 242 active court cases.

How to Avoid or Prepare for EEOC Discrimination Charges

Employers who learn of possible discrimination, including harassment, must act promptly. This usually involves investigating the circumstances and taking remedial action where warranted.

Click here to download my free Guide to Investigating Workplace Harassment Complaints.

Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

On December 20, 2017, the Communications Workers of America filed a federal lawsuit in California claiming that various employers had discriminated against job applicants based on age. The named defendant employers are T-Mobile, Amazon, Cox Communications, and Cox Media Group. CWA contends these companies (among others) unlawfully targeted candidates through Facebook ads. Several individuals joined CWA as plaintiffs in this proposed class action.

In addition to the four named defendants, the lawsuit purports to also “bring this action . . . against a Defendant Class of hundreds of major American employers and employment agencies that, upon information and belief, routinely exclude older workers from receiving their employment and recruiting ads on Facebook, and thus deny older workers job opportunities.” The lawsuit indicates that the plaintiffs intend to identify additional defendants “through early discovery in this action or a pre-discovery exchange of information with Facebook.”

Prefer a free webinar? Try Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring.

Plaintiffs’ Allegations

These statements from the lawsuit reflect the theory behind the plaintiffs’ claims:

  • “These companies eliminate older workers from receiving job ads by specifically targeting their employment ads to younger workers via Facebook’s ad platform.”
  • “Upon information and belief, nationwide, large and small employers alike apparently believe that it is appropriate and desirable to exclude American workers from job opportunities solely based on their age.”
  • “When selecting the population of Facebook users who will receive employment ads, employers and employment agencies routinely focus their ads on prospective applicants who are in age bands that exclude many workers who are 40-years-old or greater, e.g., workers who are ‘ages 18 to 38,’ ‘ages 22 to 45,’ or ‘ages 21 to 55,’ thereby preventing older workers from receiving advertising and recruitment for job opportunities, upon information and belief.”
  • “Upon information and belief, Facebook does not stop an employer or employment agency from selecting a younger age range (such as ages 18 to 40) that discriminates against older workers in setting the population that will receive an employment ad via Facebook.”
  • “Facebook provides advertisers the ability to send employment ads to individuals who fall into the following categories related to a younger age group or categories that ordinarily would be a proxy for younger workers: Young & hip – a group of millions of people “whose activities strongly suggest they are young and hip” (according to Facebook); and Millennials – a group of millions of people “who have expressed an interest in or like pages related to Millennials” (according to Facebook).”

Potential Defendants

The lawsuit describes as defendants:

All employers or employment agencies who annually employ at least 2,500 employees or annually refer for employment at least 2,500 employees, and have purchased or sent employment-related Facebook advertisements that placed an upper age limit on the population of Facebook users that was eligible to receive an advertisement, at any time from the earliest date actionable under the limitations period applicable to the given claim, until the date of judgment in this action.

A Federal Complaint for the Facebook Age

The complaint document itself demonstrates a modern approach to federal court litigation. It includes screenshots of some of the contested Facebook ads pasted right into the standard pleading paragraphs.

One such screenshot is a “Why am I seeing this ad?” window. It indicates, “There may be other reasons you’re seeing this ad, including that T-Mobile Careers wants to reach people ages 18 to 38 who live or were recently in the United States.

The lawsuit does not specifically name Facebook as a defendant. However, it uses Facebook’s own job posting as evidence of the capability to target job candidates by age. (At least the Facebook example shown suggests a larger age range, from 21 to 55!)

Age Discrimination

For procedural reasons, the CWA lawsuit only asserts claims under various state laws that prohibit age discrimination. But the plaintiffs reference the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act in summarizing the legal/policy basis for their claims.

The ADEA prohibits employers with 20+ employees from discriminating based on age among employees 40 years old or older. It includes this provision specific to job advertisements:

Printing or publication of notice or advertisement indicating preference, limitation, etc.

It shall be unlawful for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on age.

Not Just Age Discrimination

Age isn’t the only characteristic upon which applicants have alleged employment discrimination through Facebook ads. On November 3, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the same California federal court. Facebook is the only named defendant in that case, which alleged both employment- and housing-related discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, and national origin.

The employment discrimination claims allege violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Besides Facebook, this lawsuit uses “Doe Defendants 1 to 9,999” to refer to purported “entities that have used Facebook’s Ad Platform to illegally discriminate . . . with advertisements for employment or housing.”

Like the ADEA, Title VII has a specific provision regarding job advertisements:

Printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination; occupational qualification exception

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer . . .  indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.

Facebook and the plaintiffs are currently mediating this lawsuit.

Avoiding Employment Discrimination Through Facebook Ads

We don’t have court decisions on these claims yet. Nonetheless, most employers should probably avoid limiting publication of their online job postings to certain age groups. Targeting individuals 18+ may be acceptable for many jobs. But there would be few situations where an upper age limit would be a risk-free approach.

Likewise, limiting ads based on gender, race, religion, etc., is also a risky strategy. Perhaps a compelling (and potentially non-discriminatory) business case can be made. But applicants may still follow the lead of these cases and challenge online recruiting practices that appear to exclude them.

As the litigation develops in these and other cases, perhaps some additional leeway may emerge as reasonable. For example, is it okay to run separate ads for different age groups, as long as no-one is excluded? Would the employer need to spend an equal amount on all age groups? Is that even possible to guarantee?

We may also see Facebook change its approach to ad targeting because of the discrimination claims. That could have implications beyond recruiting, potentially affecting all forms of online advertising.

Learn more about employment discrimination through Facebook Ads and other recruiting issues:

Check out my webinar on Legal Risks of Social Media in Hiring!