Appellate Division Rules Independent Contractor Agreements Signed by Driver’s Corporation Not Bullet Proof Against Class Action Overtime and Wage Deduction Claims

On October 29, 2018 a N.J. Appellate Division panel reversed a dismissal of class action overtime pay claims brought against a freight-forwarding company that convinced the lower court that the company’s drivers and deliverers lacked standing to sue because they signed independent contractor agreements to provide services through their separate corporations. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division found that the court below prematurely ended its inquiry into whether the plaintiff was an employee or an independent contractor, and directed the lower court to look beyond the terms of the contract to consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the relationship between the drivers and the company.  Veras v. Interglobo North America, Inc., et al., Docket No. A-3313-16T1 (Oct. 29, 2018).

In 2014, Raymond Veras, through his corporation J&K Trucking Solution, signed a “Contractor Lease Agreement” (CLA) with Interglobo and then provided driver services to Interglobo.  He claimed that he routinely worked in excess of 40 hours each week but received no overtime pay, and that Interglobo took illegal deductions from his pay. In 2015 he filed a class action under the N.J. Wage and Hour Law (WHL) and the Wage Payment Law (WPL) against two Interglobo entities. The CLA clearly stated that J&K was an independent delivery operator. However, Veras’s complaint alleged that, despite the CLA which his corporation signed, he was an employee protected by the WHL and WPL since he took direction from Interglobo and its employees, wore its uniforms, dealt with its customers’ invoices, and was subject to discipline and termination by Interglobo.

The lower court dismissed Veras’s complaint on the grounds that he lacked standing to bring the action. The Appellate Division reversed and held that the A-B-C test articulated by the N.J. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Hargrove v. Sleepy’s applied to determine whether Veras’ relationship with Interglobo was that of an employee as opposed to an independent contractor. The Appellate Division held that “a court is not limited to the terms of the contract between the parties” and the court should review “the substance, not the form of the relationship … to determine if [the relationship] is exempt from the WPL and WHL.”

The A-B-C test presumes that a service provider is an employee, unless the service recipient can prove A, B and C: (A) the service provider is free from direction or control by the service recipient, (B) the services rendered to the recipient are outside the recipient’s usual course of business, or are performed outside all places of the recipient’s business, and (C) the service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

Interglobo argued that the A-B-C test did not apply because Veras’s employer was his own corporation, J&K Trucking Solution, and under the economic realities test, Interglobo was not the employer. The court rejected this argument, too, and held that the economic realities test does not apply to WHL and WPL claims.

The Appellate Division held that the A-B-C test applied to Veras regardless of whether the CLA was signed by Veras as an individual or by his corporation, and stated that the A-B-C test presumes that Veras was an employee, not an independent contractor. The Appellate Division reasoned that even if the economic realities test did apply, dismissal of the complaint at the motion to dismiss stage was not warranted solely because of the CLA, because this test is fact-intensive, and courts rarely decide a worker’s status on a summary judgment motion, let alone on a motion to dismiss before discovery is taken.

Ultimately, this Appellate Division panel decided that the mere fact that the service provider’s corporation, and not the driver himself, signed an independent contractor agreement with the service recipient was not dispositive of the issue of employee versus independent contractor status at the motion to dismiss stage, and the underlying facts must be examined to determine whether, despite the contract, the service provider is an employee and has standing to sue the service recipient under the WHL or the WPL.  As businesses attempt to create more separateness between themselves and their service providers, this court cautions that employee status will not depend on the existence of a contract alone, but will be analyzed under the rigorous A-B-C test.

For more information on this court development, wage and hour law compliance, or independent contractor agreements, please contact Patrick W. McGovern, Esq., Partner in the firm’s Labor Law, Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation, Immigration Law and Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Groups, at PMcGovern@nullgenovaburns.com.

How to Avoid Disney’s Not-So-Fairy Tale $3.8 Million Payment of Employee Back Wages

On Friday, March 17, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and two subsidiaries of The Walt Disney Co. (“Disney”), the Disney Vacation Club Management Corp., and the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc., reached an agreement to resolve claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), requiring the payment of back wages of over $3.8 million to more than 16,000 employees of the two Florida-based Disney companies.

According to the DOL, Disney deducted a uniform (or “costume”) expense from employee pay, which lead some employees’ hourly rate to fall below the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour. The subsidiaries also did not compensate the employees for performing pre- and post-shift duties while additionally failing to maintain required time and payroll records.

As part of the agreement, Disney agreed to start training all Florida-based managers, supervisors, and non-exempt employees on what constitutes compensable worktime and emphasizing the need to record all records pertaining to time accurately.

There are certain steps that employers can do to avoid the significant damages Disney incurred including:

  • Maintain accurate payroll, time, and schedule related records. This is particularly important to our hospitality and restaurant clients where record keeping can be especially difficult.  Also, remember that under the FLSA, the records must be  maintained for a minimum of three years for payroll records and six years under New Jersey and New York law.
  • Deductions are an easy target for the plaintiffs’ bar. Employers must make sure that any deductions are legal under state law and that the deductions if permissible do not bring the affected employee below the state or federal minimum wage;
  • Perform a wage and hour self-audit every two years to avoid misclassification issues and to ensure your recordkeeping and pay practices are consistent with the law;
  • To avoid donning and duffing claims (claims involving changing into and out of uniforms, costumes, and protective equipment for example), employers must take care to distinguish between non-compensable time when changing into and out of the uniform is merely for the employees’ convenience as opposed to compensable time when the job cannot be accomplished without wearing the designated uniform or costume or safety equipment and it is impractical to arrive at work wearing same.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss best practices in complying with federal wage regulations, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq., Partner & Chair of the  Wage and Hour Compliance Practice Group at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or call 973-533-0777 or Harris S. Freier, Esq., a Partner in the Employment Law and Appellate practice groups, at hfreier@nullgenovaburns.com, or call 973-533-0777.  Mr. Vreeland and Mr. Freier routinely work together in defending wage and hour class actions.  Please visit our free Labor & Employment Blog at www.labor-law-blog.com to stay up-to-date on the latest news and legal developments affecting your workforce.

Philadelphia Becomes First U.S. City to Prohibit Inquiries into Applicants’ Wage Histories

On January 23, 2017, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed into law the “Wage History Ordinance,” which bans all employers doing business in Philadelphia from asking job applicants about their wage histories, subject to a few exceptions. The Ordinance, unanimously passed by the Philadelphia City Council on December 8, 2016, amends Chapter 9-1100 of the Philadelphia Code, the “Fair Practices Ordinance.” The new law, the first for a U.S. city, will take effect on Tuesday, May 23, 2017.

The Wage History Ordinance specifically prohibits employers from the following:

  • To inquire about, require disclosure of, or condition employment or consideration for an interview on the disclosure of a potential employee’s wage history, unless done pursuant to a “federal, state or local law that specifically authorizes the disclosure or verification of wage history for employment purposes;”
  • Determine a potential employee’s wages based upon his/her wage history provided by his/her current or former employer, unless the potential employee “knowingly and willingly” disclosed such information to the prospective employer; and/or
  • Take any adverse action against a potential employee who does not comply with a wage history inquiry (anti-retaliation provision).

For purposes of this Section 9-1131, “to inquire” shall mean to “ask a job applicant in writing or otherwise,” and “wages” shall mean “all earnings of an employee, regardless of whether determined on time, task, piece, commission or other method of calculation and including fringe benefits, wage supplements, or other compensation whether payable by the employer from employer funds or from amounts withheld from the employee’s pay by the employer.”

Notably, the exception allowing wage history inquiries where a law “specifically authorizes” such applies not only when the inquiry is required by law, but when it is merely permitted by law.

The new law also requires a prospective employee who alleges a violation of the Ordinance to file a complaint with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act before he/she may file a civil action in court. Violations of the Ordinance can result in an award of injunctive or other equitable relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages (not to exceed $2,000 per violation), reasonable attorneys’ fees and hearing costs.

Advocates of the legislation, like Philadelphia Councilman Bill Greenlee, have suggested that the Ordinance is aimed at reducing the gender wage gap.  According to the “Findings” section of the Ordinance, women in Pennsylvania are paid 79 cents for every dollar that a man earns.  Amongst minorities, it claims that African-American women are paid 68 cents, Latinas are paid 56 cents, and Asian women are paid 81 cents for every dollar paid to men.  The belief is that, since women have historically been paid less than men, an employer’s knowledge of applicants’ wage histories can perpetuate a cycle of lower salaries.  Advocates profess that the Ordinance forces prospective employers to, instead, set salaries based on an applicant’s experience and the value of the position to the company.

Opponents of the Ordinance, like Rob Wonderling, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia, denounce it as an unnecessary “hassle” driving businesses away from Philadelphia.  Corporations like Comcast have also threatened costly lawsuits contesting the legality of the Ordinance.

It is recommended that employers review their hiring practices and applications for employment in advance of the Wage History Ordinance’s effective date of May 23, 2017.  Moreover, anyone involved in the hiring and interview process must be trained to ensure compliance with the new law prohibiting inquiries into an applicant’s salary history.

For more information on the Wage History Ordinance, how it may affect your business, or ways to ensure that your company’s hiring documents and policies comply with the Ordinance, please contact John C. Petrella, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Employment Litigation Practice Group, at jpetrella@nullgenovaburns.com, or Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Chair of the firm’s Human Resources Practice Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com, or 973-533-0777.

Federal Judge Halts Final Overtime Rule Days Before Implementation

On November 22, U.S. District Court Judge Amos L. Mazzant III, sitting in Sherman, Texas, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“USDOL”) enforcement of its Final Overtime Rule which would have more than doubled the minimum salary employees must be paid to be treated as exempt from overtime. The USDOL estimated that the Final Overtime Rule, which was set to go into effect December 1, 2016, would capture 4.2 million workers into the overtime ranks.

The case, entitled Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00731, was filed by 21 states in the Eastern District of Texas. The States argued that the Department of Labor lacked the statutory authority to use a salary-level test and an automatic updating mechanism to determine overtime eligibility. Judge Mazzant agreed. Judge Mazzant found that under a plain reading of the statute, nothing in the White-Collar exemption indicates Congress intended the USDOL to define and delimit parameters for a minimum salary level. Instead, the focus is on the employee’s duties and Judge Mazzant found that the USDOL “exceed[ed] its delegated authority and ignor[ed] Congress’s intent by raising the minimum salary level such that it supplants the duties test.” While the USDOL may appeal the preliminary injunction, and the Court will eventually rule on whether to grant a permanent injunction, the Court has told the USDOL that it may not enforce the Rule.

So, what does this mean? For now, because of the nationwide preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Overtime Rule, employers do not have to comply with the Overtime Rule’s requirements.  Right now, the current minimum salary that must be paid to qualify an executive, administrative or professional employee for an overtime exemption is $455 per week and this will remain the minimum salary on December 1st and until such time as Judge Mazzant’s decision is modified at the permanent injunction phase or successfully appealed.

Whether and when the government will appeal is unclear. The Final Overtime Rule is unpopular with employers, employer groups (like the Chamber of Commerce), and Senate and House Republicans. Whether President-elect Trump’s Department of Labor will defend the Overtime Rule in the face of State and business opposition is an issue that will be addressed in early 2017. We will keep you posted about any new developments regarding the Overtime Rule.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the preliminary injunction against the Overtime Rule and options available to your business if it has already taken action to comply with the Overtime Rule, please contact John Vreeland in our Labor Group at (973) 535-7118 or jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com.

 

Supreme Court Punts on Whether Service Advisors Are Exempt from FLSA Overtime Premium Pay

The United States Supreme Court recently issued its long awaited decision in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro. At issue in the case was whether “service advisors” employed by car dealerships are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime premium pay requirement, as well as the validity of a related 2011 United States Department of Labor regulation. Unfortunately, the Court did not decide whether service advisors are exempt. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with the instruction that the Ninth Circuit decide the issue “without placing controlling weight” on the DOL’s 2011 regulation.

The issues in Encino Motorcars were rooted in a provision of the FLSA that expressly provides that “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” is exempt from the FLSA’s overtime premium pay requirement. The FLSA is silent as to whether service advisors qualify for this exemption. In 1970, the DOL issued an interpretive regulation in which it concluded that service advisors do not fall within the exemption. Several courts rejected the DOL’s interpretation, and in a 1978 Opinion Letter the DOL changed course and took the position that service advisors are exempt. The DOL maintained this position until 2011, when it issued a regulation that, without explanation, excluded service advisors from the exemption.

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Encino Motorcars arose from a Ninth Circuit decision in which the Ninth Circuit relied on the DOL’s 2011 regulation to hold that a group of service advisors were eligible for overtime premium pay. The service advisors at issue would meet with a customer, evaluate the customer’s car, suggest repairs and dealership service plans, and then send the car to a mechanic who repaired and/or serviced the car. In remanding the case, the Supreme Court found that the DOL failed to follow basic procedural requirements of administrative rulemaking, which require administrative agencies to explain their rules. The Supreme Court found this especially important here, where the DOL issued a rule contrary to its prior position. The Supreme Court was critical of the DOL for its failure to explain adequately its rationale for changing its position, and its failure to consider the public’s reliance on the DOL’s longstanding policy. Car dealerships will have to wait for the Ninth Circuit’s subsequent decision, and possibly another Supreme Court decision, before the issue of whether service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime premium pay requirement is resolved.

For more information regarding the potential impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, or regarding any other wage and hour issues, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq. Director of the Firm’s Wage & Hour Compliance Practice Group, at 973-535-7118 or jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com, or Joseph V. Manney, Esq. at 973-646-3297 or jmanney@nullgenovaburns.com.

$15 Minimum Wage Bill Heads to Governor Christie’s Desk

In a close 21-18 vote the New Jersey State Senate passed bill S15, the $15 Minimum Wage Bill. The bill will now head to Governor Christie’s desk after its previous stamp of approval from the New Jersey State Assembly.  The vote proceeded along party lines with the 18 Republican legislators raising objections to the increased costs on businesses and the 21 Democratic legislators fighting to provide a living wage.

Governor Christie has not commented on whether he will veto the bill but it is highly unlikely he accepts the $15 wage increase. State Democratic leaders have promised to submit the $15 minimum wage to the voters in a constitutional referendum if Governor Christie vetoes the bill.

$15 minimum wage bills have already been signed into law in New York and California.  Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut are currently considering similar bills. In addition to the $15 minimum wage there are potential costs for insurance and payroll taxes.  Employers should continue to stay informed on the movement of this legislation with an eye on implementation in early 2018.

For more information regarding the potential impacts of Bill S15, or regarding any other wage and hour issues, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq. Director of the Firm’s Wage & Hour Compliance Practice Group, at 973-535-7118 or jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com, or Aaron C. Carter, Esq. at 973-646-3275 or acarter@nullgenovaburns.com.

New Jersey Assembly Picks Up Fight For $15 Minimum Wage

The fight for a $15 minimum wage is gaining steam in the New Jersey Legislature. On May 26, 2016, the New Jersey Assembly passed Bill A15, which would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2021. Currently, the New Jersey State minimum wage is $8.38 per hour.

The $15 minimum wage would not get there all at once. Under the recently passed bill, the minimum wage first would increase to $10.10 per hour on January 1, 2017.  Then, between 2018 and 2021, the minimum wage would increase by the greater of $1.25 an hour or $1.00 an hour plus the CPI each year. An identical version of the Assembly’s bill has already passed the New Jersey Senate’s Labor Committee (Bill S15). If the full Senate passes the bill it will head to the Governor’s desk where it most likely will be vetoed.

But the Governor’s veto may not be the end of the bill. The Legislature is proposing that in the event of a Governor veto, the bill be put to a constitutional referendum for the voters to decide during the New Jersey General Election on November 7, 2017. This would not be the first time the Legislature managed to get around a veto to increase the minimum wage. The minimum wage was previously raised by constitutional referendum in 2013 when voters amended the State’s Constitution to increase the minimum wage to $8.25 per hour despite a Governor Christie veto.

While the proposed $15 minimum wage may seem a long way away, employers should start thinking now about how this would affect their business. Many employers are still struggling from the more than 15% increase in the minimum wage over the last two years. An increase to just $10.10 in 2018 (which is when the increase would take effect if the bill is vetoed but then approved through referendum) would reflect another 20% increase, or an almost 40% increase since 2013.  Such increased labor costs may be more than some employers can or are willing to absorb. For instance, Wendy’s recently stated it would replace some workers with automated machines in response to significant increases in minimum wage.

For more information regarding the potential impacts of Bill A15, or regarding any other wage and hour issues, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq. Director of the Firm’s Wage & Hour Compliance Practice Group, at 973-535-7118 or jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com, or Aaron C. Carter, Esq. at 973-646-3275 or acarter@nullgenovaburns.com.

Employers Face Exposure Under Title VII When Contracting For Temporary Workers

On November 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit allowed an employee of a temporary staffing agency to proceed with employment discrimination claims against a company to which the staffing agency assigned him.  In Faush v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., Docket No.14-1452 (3rd Cir. 2015), the Court found that for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the worker successfully established that he was an employee of the staffing agency’s customer.

In this case, the staffing agency directly employed the worker, and assigned plaintiff to a customer for a 10 day temporary assignment.  The worker claimed that the customer discriminated against him based on his race while performing his duties.  Plaintiff asserted claims against the customer under Title VII, which prohibits employers from unlawfully discriminating against employees.  The Court found that the customer exerted enough control over the manner in which the worker performed his duties, so that it became an employer under Title VII.

In reaching this determination, the Third Circuit applied a test called the Darden test, which focuses on “the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished.”  This “right to control” is based upon a consideration of the following factors: 1) skill required to perform the job; 2) who provides the tools; 3) location of the work; 3) duration of the relationship between the parties; 4) whether the customer may assign additional projects to the worker; 5) the extent of the worker’s discretion on when and how long to work; 6) wages/method of payment; 7) the worker’s role in hiring and paying assistants; 8) whether the work performed is a part of the customer’s regular business; 9) whether the customer is in business; 10) whether employee benefits are provided; and 11) the tax treatment of the worker.

The Customer’s Control Over Wages.  Here, the staffing agency set the worker’s rate of pay, paid wages, paid payroll and social security taxes, and maintained workers’ compensation insurance for the worker.  The staffing agency’s customer, however, also shared some responsibilities in connection with the worker’s wages.  First, the customer was obligated to notify the staffing agency if any minimum wage was owed to the worker.  Second, the customer agreed to pay overtime charges.  Third, the customer also obligated itself to pay for any changes arising from an increase in the staffing agency’s costs for wages, taxes, and insurance for this worker.  Fourth, the customer paid the staffing agency for each hour worked by the worker, at an agreed upon hourly rate.  The Third Circuit found that this method of payment indicated the existence of an employment relationship between the worker and customer.  The Court reasoned that in an independent contractor relationship, the customer would have paid a fixed rate to the staffing agency.  Instead, the customer indirectly paid the worker’s wages, plus an administrative fee to the staffing agency.

The Customer’s Control Over Hiring and Firing.  The staffing agency hired the worker and assigned him to this particular customer.  However, the customer reserved the discretion to find this worker suitable for the assignment and could also demand a replacement worker.  Therefore, the customer essentially exercised discretion over hiring and termination decisions.

The Customer’s Control Over The Worker’s Daily Activities.  The customer delegated assignments to the worker, directly supervised him, trained him, furnished equipment and materials, and verified the time he worked.   The customer also managed the temporary worker in the same manner as its employees.  Moreover, the worker performed unskilled tasks, similar to those performed by the customer’s employees.  Finally, the customer assigned the temporary worker to one of its stores, as opposed to working in a location controlled by the staffing agency.

The Customer’s Treatment Of The Worker.  The customer itself characterized the worker as a temporary employee, not an independent contractor.  In addition, the customer committed to providing the worker with a workplace free from discrimination and unfair labor practices, and also committed to complying with all employment laws.  Thus, the Third Circuit found that these protections were similar to those offered by an employer.

Based on the customer’s control over the worker’s wages, hiring and firing decisions, and daily work activities, and based upon its treatment of the worker, the Third Circuit found that the worker could proceed with his claim that he was an employee of the customer under Title VII.

Employer’s Take-Away.  Hiring a temporary worker exposes employers to potential liability under the employment discrimination and wage and hour laws.  Carefully review agreements with staffing agencies to ensure that the worker is treated as an independent contractor and not an employee.  Employers also need to review their protocols for all contact and assignments with temporary workers to ensure that they are not treated in a manner similar to that of employees.

For more information regarding this decision and to learn if your company’s treatment of temporary workers exposes you to liability, please contact Dina M. Mastellone, Esq., Director of the firm’s Human Resources Practices Group, at dmastellone@nullgenovaburns.com or Brigette N. Eagan, Esq., Counsel in the firm’s Human Resources Practices Group, at beagan@nullgenovaburns.com.

Second Circuit Rules Court Approval or USDOL Supervision of Settlements Required in FLSA Suits

On August 7, 2015, the Second Circuit ruled that suits brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) cannot be resolved privately and require approval of a federal court or supervision by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”).

In Cheeks v. Freeport Pancakes House, Inc., 2d Cir., No. 14-299, 8/7/15, the plaintiff sued his former employer seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees under the FLSA and New York labor laws.  After engaging in some discovery, the parties reached a private settlement to dismiss the employee’s claims with prejudice and, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 41”), filed a joint stipulation and order to dismiss the lawsuit.  Under Rule 41, parties may voluntarily agree to dismiss an action without court order unless there is a federal statute prohibiting such agreement.  The District Court denied the parties’ application to dismiss the lawsuit.

As part of its ruling, the District Court directed the parties to file a copy of the settlement agreement on the public docket and to “show cause why the proposed settlement reflects a reasonable compromise of disputed issues rather than a mere waiver of statutory rights brought by an employer’s overreaching.”  The parties jointly sought certification of an appeal to the Second Circuit instead, seeking a ruling on whether the parties could stipulate to dismissal of the action without court approval.

In affirming the lower court’s decision to deny the stipulation of settlement, the Second Circuit decided, given the unique policy considerations underlying the FLSA, that the FLSA fell within Rule 41’s “applicable federal statute” exception, thus making district court or DOL approval a requirement to dismiss an FLSA cause of action with prejudice via private settlement.  The Court reasoned that “the FLSA is a uniquely protective statute … with a strong remedial purpose: to prevent abuses by unscrupulous employers and remedy the disparate bargaining power between employers and employees.”  Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that judicial or DOL approval will protect susceptible employees from feeling coerced into accepting unreasonable or discounted settlement offers quickly.

The Cheeks ruling makes it clear that, at least in the Second Circuit, a privately negotiated settlement agreement requires court or DOL approval in order to extinguish FLSA claims in a lawsuit. This means the settlement agreement must be filed in open court.  Failure to do so in New York, Connecticut and Vermont puts the employer at risk that it will be sued again by the same claimants.

For more information regarding this decision and best practices, please contact John Vreeland, Esq., Director of the Wage & Hour Compliance Practice Group, at jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or 973-533-0777.

 

 

New Wage and Hour Poster for 2015 Increase to New Jersey’s Minimum Wage

The New Jersey Department of Labor has issued a new Wage and Hour Law poster.  The new poster includes updates reflecting the imminent increase to New Jersey’s minimum wage to $8.38, effective January 1, 2015.  Employers are required to post notice of the minimum wage rate in a conspicuous place in which employees have access, such as the cafeteria or break room.  Employers may display this poster prior to January 1, 2015, but must also continue to post the mandated 2014 poster through December 31, 2014.

This serves as a reminder to all employers that the minimum wage increase will automatically take effect as of January 1, 2015.  Employers should be mindful of this increase and update their wage payment policies and payroll systems accordingly to reflect the applicable minimum wage rates and ensure that all employees are properly paid.

A copy of the minimum wage rate poster can be found on the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s website, or through this link: http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/forms_pdfs/lsse/mw-220.pdf.

If you have any questions or for more information about the requirements of the updated minimum wage rate and its impact on your business’s payroll policies, please contact John R. Vreeland, Esq. Director of Wage & Hour Compliance, at 973-535-7118, jvreeland@nullgenovaburns.com or Allison Gotfried, Esq., at 973-646-3297, agotfried@nullgenovaburns.com.