Tennessee Employment Lawyer Blog

It isn’t just factory workers or office staff that is protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The act can also apply to the adult entertainment industry.  In fact, there has been a string of lawsuits against strip clubs across the country because they fail to pay the dancers in accordance with the minimum hourly wage laws.

According to this lawsuit, two former exotic dancers at the Red Garter Saloon strip club are suing the company and its owner Mark Rossi over unpaid wages. Michea Dixon and Rebecca Wiles claim in a seventeen page complaint that Red Garter Saloon, Rossi, and his company, Keys Productions, Inc., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them an hourly wage or overtime. Their lawsuit states that the women claim their only form of compensation was by way of tips and that the business failed to pay the plaintiff any wages whatsoever, throughout her employment.

Their legal representation wrote in the complaint that the business has a “longstanding policy of misclassifying their employees as independent contractors.” He alleges in the complaint such a classification is illegal. This lawsuit is very similar to several other lawsuits filed by exotic dancers alleging wage theft as per the independent contractor classification, which appears to be the common theme in other litigation.

The women also claim that that the business also violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by its alleged practice of “siphoning away those tips to distribute to non-tip eligible employees,” which the lawsuit lists as the disc jockeys, wait staff and security guards. According to the lawsuit the dancers were expected to pay “house fees” depending on the day and shift the dancer was working. Dixon had been a dancer for about three years. Court documents do not state how long Wiles worked there.

The complaint included all other dancers, current and former, who worked or work at the Red Garter Saloon since October 2010 as potential plaintiffs as well. Both women seek all unpaid wages for that time, including all “misappropriated tips” and house fees as well as attorney fees.

Mark Rossi was issued a summons regarding the lawsuit on Dec. 1, according to court records. He declined to comment on the pending litigation. No trial date has been set yet.

Unfortunately cases just like this one occur all too often to employees all over the United States as well as to employees right here in Tennessee. If you or someone you know has been denied hourly wages or overtime pay for hours that you have worked, then it is recommended that you talk to one of our compassionate and experienced employment and overtime pay attorneys with the Higgins Firm. We care about our clients and realize that you work very hard. We will review your claim and determine if you may be eligible for compensation. If you are, we will work with you and fight on your behalf to see to it that you receive fair compensation for your hard work and make sure the company or employer pays for violating your employment rights.
Please contact us today online or by calling 800.705.2121 to discuss your legal options.

According to this recent case, Amy Potts was pregnant and had just undergone a surgical procedure in April 2010 when she requested that she be permitted to lift no more than 25 pounds at the Landis Homes Retirement Community where she worked as a supervisor for eight years. The lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that Potts was placed on unpaid, indefinite leave that day and then told to re-apply after she gave birth and was able to return to work without restrictions. When she did reapply in March of 2011, she was informed that she had been terminated effective the end of that month and would not be considered for the positions because they had not been informed that her lifting restriction had ended.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a press release stated that, “The Landis Homes Retirement Community failed to accommodate a pregnant nursing supervisor, terminated her because of her pregnancy and in retaliation for her reasonable accommodation request, and later refused to rehire because of her pregnancy and disability.” Spencer H. Lewis Jr., director of one of the EEOC’s offices stated that, “Fairness and federal law mandate that pregnant employees be treated the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. In this case, the nursing home accommodated non-pregnant employees who had work restrictions, but treated Amy Potts differently because of her pregnancy. That is simply unjust and against the law.”
Larry Guengerich, spokesman for the nursing home’s parent organization, Landis Communities stated in an email that the company “does not discriminate against its employees in any way, shape or form.” He also stated that, “While we do not wish to comment on the specific allegations made by the EEOC at this time, we look forward to vigorously defending our position in court,” he wrote. “The EEOC has painted a picture that Landis intentionally seeks to deprive its employees the rights they are entitled to under law when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.”
According to the lawsuit, The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informed Landis Communities in April that it believed federal law had been violated and wanted to pursue a conciliation agreement. It indicated that effort was unsuccessful.
The lawsuit is seeking financial compensation for Potts and punitive damages as well as changes in the employment practices of the Landis Communities Company.

Cases similar to this one occur all too often. If you feel that you or someone you care about has been discriminated against in anyway at work, then it is important that you contact one of our caring and experienced employment and discrimination lawyers with the Higgins Firm.  We will listen to your case, and help you to get any compensation you deserve for what you have been through.  To make your consultation as fruitful as possible please be sure to have any relevant emails, texts, or other documentation that may support your claims.  The more information we have the better we will be able to asses your case and the likelihood of success.


Worker misclassification has become perhaps the most widespread way employers are cheating employees out of money they are entitled; otherwise known as “wage theft”.

Construction companies, strip clubs, delivery services, music industry, movie studios, fashion designers, and most recently employers in the “shared economy” such as Uber and Lyft have found themselves in trouble for misclassifying their employees as “independent contractors” or “interns”

Uber and Lyft claim they are a technology service, their only business is connecting customers with contractors providing a certain service; however it certainly appears Uber and Lyft are  car services, not technology services. If these companies provide a service and have folks they employ to provide these services, they owe these employees minimum wage and overtime. You can learn more about worker misclassification as it relates to independent contractors here.

Often in industries viewed as “glamorous”- such as the movie or music industry- employers will improperly classify workers as “interns”. Employers claim the individual is receiving valuable work/educational experience which is more valuable to the “intern” than the employer. In reality, these folks are picking up dry cleaning, cleaning offices, running cash registers or other tasks the company would normally have to pay someone to do. These activities clearly benefit the employer more than the employee; these folks are entitled to minimum wage and overtime.

The bottom line is, lots of employers are trying to avoid their legal obligations by misclassifying employees. The benefit to the company for misclassifying these workers is clear; as independent contractors or interns employees are not entitled to minimum wage or overtime, unemployment benefits, workers compensation benefits, etc.

Recent lawsuits have been filed against major employers such as NBCWarner Music Group, Atlantic Records, Grub Hub, Amazon, Uber, Lyft, Fed Ex, Michael Kors, Versace, etc. all claiming worker misclassification.

We handle cases of worker misclassification on a daily basis and would be glad to review your case for no charge. Feel free to contact our Tennessee Employment Law Office and we will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

GREAT NEWS FOR HOME HEALTH WORKERS! The Court of Appeals has decided that the previous exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act for third-party employers of certain home health care workers no longer applies. The decision Home Care Association of American v. Weil has made it possible for the government to enforce minimum wage and overtime pay laws for a home health care workers that used to be exempt from such benefits. The decision means that there could be potential change in this industry because it make third-party home health care employers to take another look their pay practices and how they will conduct their businesses in the long-term.

The Fair Labor Standards Act except with specific exemptions requires employers and businesses to pay minimum wage and time and a half for overtime pay benefits to all of their workers. One of these exemptions previously applied to “companionship services” provided by “domestic service” workers who provide basic care for the elderly, ill, or disabled in their homes. A domestic service worker used to be exempt from these benefits no matter what company or business employed these workers. Domestic services increasingly have been provided by employees of third-party health care providers.

The Department of Labor which enforces laws and regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act has issued a rule that third party employers could no longer invoke the “companionship services” exemption for its domestic service employees. Health care companies challenged this new rule by the Department of Labor and had it overturned. The District of Columbia District Court overturned the rule stating that the Department of Labor could not overturn the exemption because it has operated that way for decades. Then on August 21, the DC Court of Appeals reversed that decision stating that the Department of Labor has the authority to make changes to the exemption such as excluding third party providers.

Approximately two million home care employees who work for home health providers will now be eligible for minimum wage and overtime pay benefits. Home health companies and employers should educate themselves about this new ruling and seek advice if needed about how best to begin these Fair Labor Standards Act practices for their employees. Unless there is a stay pending further appeal, the regulations are scheduled to go into effect on October 13, 2015.

Even though we all work hard for our money and to support our families and the ones we love, some employees in the past have been exempt from minimum wage and overtime pay benefits. Some employers and businesses even misclassify their workers so that they will be exempt from these rights. If you or someone you work with feels you have been wrongly denied your overtime pay or minimum wage benefits, then you should talk to a minimum wage and overtime pay lawyer with the Higgins Firm. We will review your case, answer any questions you may and make sure you receive any compensation you may be entitled to for the hours you have worked.

If you are a home health worker or another employee that was previously exempt from these benefits and you want to know how this decision may affect you or your case or you feel that you have been denied these benefits, then you should contact a minimum wage and overtime pay lawyer at the Higgins Firm. We will answer any questions you may and make sure that you are getting the benefits that are rightfully yours by law.

Please contact us today online or by calling 800.705.2121 to discuss your legal options.

Many people in this country unfortunately face discrimination at some point in their lives. There is discrimination in the workplace based on gender, disability, age, sexual orientation and more. However, most people expect to not be discriminated against about their own home. According to this case, a homeowner’s association discriminated against a family because they wanted to put in a therapeutic sun room where their two children, both of whom have Down syndrome could play and receive their physical therapy. If you or someone you care about has been discriminated against because of a disability or for any other reason, you should speak to our compassionate and knowledgeable disability discrimination lawyers with the Higgins Firm. We will work with you to make sure you receive the compensation you are entitled to for what you have been through.

The former Chestnut Bend residents Charles and Melanie Hollis filed a federal lawsuit in 2012 alleging that, when the Hollises wanted to build a therapeutic sun room onto their house, “the Chestnut Bend Homeowners Association denied their request to construct it based on concerns about the way the addition would look.” According to the lawsuit, the family asked for permission to build the sun room in 2011 and then for a year went back and forth with the Homeowner’s Association’s architectural review committee which fought the family on planned materials and the design of the sun room. The lawsuit also states that, “Each time additional information was requested, the Hollises complied with the request and each time their plans were rejected and their application summarily denied.” Since the Homeowner’s Association kept denying their request, the Hollises had to sell their house at a loss and move out of Chestnut Bend altogether in order to give their children the in- home care they needed. The Chestnut Bend’s HOA website states that, “this 168 home community shares a variety of lifestyles from active seniors to families with young children to singles and professional couples. Chestnut Bend strives to include all residents while building a strong sense of community and stellar example of fantastic Franklin family life!” However, according to the lawsuit, the Chestnut Bend’s refusal to let them build a sun room discriminated against their family and also constituted a violation of the Fair Housing Act, which among other things makes it illegal for agencies to refuse “reasonable modifications” enabling disabled residents to live comfortably within their own homes.

The Chestnut Bend Homeowner’s Association paid $156,000 to settle the lawsuit but they do not admit to any wrongdoing. Mike Vaughn, current president of the Chestnut Bend HOA board stated that, “We have architectural standards that everybody in the neighborhood has to follow. We followed the rules.” He also said that the Hollises’ lawsuit and allegations of discriminatory practices harmed the other residents of the Chestnut Bend Homeowner’s Association. Finally, he stated that,”We took it personally because we’re a welcoming neighborhood. ”

Unfortunately other homeowner’s associations have had similar disputes and faced similar lawsuits in other parts of the country. People should not have to face any type of discrimination but should definitely feel safe from it in their own homes. If you or someone you love has been discriminated against based on a disability or any other reason, then you should contact one of our experienced discrimination attorneys with the Higgins Firm. We care about our clients and will make sure you get the compensation you deserve for the discrimination you have had to deal with.

Contact us online or call 800.705.2121 for your free consultation.

This year the United States Department of Labor announced its 2015 Misclassification Initiative aimed at combatting the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. While this has been a priority for the DOL for the last several years, they seem to be getting really, really serious of it lately. And for good reason- a June 2013 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report stated: “The misclassification of employees as independent contractors is a nationwide issue affecting millions of workers that continues to grow and contribute to the tax gap.” A 2009 TIGTA report on misclassification said the lost tax revenue from this misclassification is more than $1.6 billion dollars annually.

Today, about 50 million workers – one-third of the workforce – are classified as independent contractors, freelancers, or temporary workers. This number is predicted to grow to 60 million workers – 40 percent of the workforce – by 2020. These workers do not receive benefits and safeguards such as unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and retirement benefits.

On July 15 of this year, the DOL issued a memo setting out how the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law governing minimum wage and overtime among other things, should be applied in making the determination if an employee is truly an “independent contractor” or would be considered an employee under the FLSA and entitled to the benefits it guarantees. And they could not have been more clear as to the expansive coverage of the FLSA. 

The Department of Labor states “most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definition”.

According to the memo, independent contractors are individuals with economic independence, operating a business of their own. On the other hand, workers who are economically dependent on the company, regardless of skill level, are employees under the FLSA’s “very broad definitions.” The memo states the old definition based on the control the employer had over the employee no longer is controlling and courts should look at the “economic realities of the working relationship”.

In other words, a worker is entitled to minimum wage, overtime, and other provisions of the FLSA if, as a matter of economic reality, the worker is dependent on the entity. Is the worker economically dependent on the employer or truly in business for him or herself? This is the proper test to determine who is an employee under the FLSA.

The court listed six factors to look at when making this determination and gave examples of each:

  • Is the Work an Integral Part of the Employer’s Business?


    For a construction company that frames residential homes, carpenters are integral to the employer’s business because the company is in business to frame homes, and carpentry is an integral part of providing that service.

    Does the Worker’s Managerial Skill Affect the Worker’s Opportunity for Profit or Loss?


    A worker provides cleaning services for corporate clients. The worker performs assignments only as determined by a cleaning company; he does not independently schedule assignments, solicit additional work from other clients, advertise his services, or endeavor to reduce costs. The worker regularly agrees to work additional hours at any time in order to earn more. In this scenario, the worker does not exercise managerial skill that affects his profit or loss. Even if the worker’s earnings fluctuate based on the work available and his willingness to work more- the lack of managerial duties is indicative of an employment relationship between the worker and the cleaning company.

    How Does the Worker’s Relative Investment Compare to the Employer’s Investment?


    A worker providing cleaning services for a cleaning company is issued a Form 1099-MISC each year and signs a contract stating that she is an independent contractor. The company provides insurance, a vehicle to use, and all equipment and supplies for the worker. The company invests in advertising and finding clients. The worker occasionally brings her own preferred cleaning supplies to certain jobs. In this scenario, the relative investment of the worker as compared to the employer’s investment is indicative of an employment relationship between the worker and the cleaning company. The worker’s investment in cleaning supplies does little to further a business beyond that particular job.

    Does the Work Performed Require Special Skill and Initiative?


    A highly skilled carpenter provides carpentry services for a construction firm; however, such skills are not exercised in an independent manner. For example, the carpenter does not make any independent judgments at the job site beyond the work that he is doing for that job; he does not determine the sequence of work, order additional materials, or think about bidding the next job, but rather is told what work to perform where. In this scenario, the carpenter, although highly- skilled technically, is not demonstrating the skill and initiative of an independent contractor (such as managerial and business skills). He is simply providing his skilled labor.

    Is the Relationship between the Worker and the Employer Permanent or Indefinite?


    An editor has worked for an established publishing house for several years. Her edits are completed in accordance with the publishing house’s specifications, using its software. She only edits books provided by the publishing house. This scenario indicates a permanence to the relationship between the editor and the publishing house that is indicative of an employment relationship.

    What is the Nature and Degree of the Employer’s Control?


    A registered nurse who provides skilled nursing care in nursing homes is listed with Beta Nurse Registry in order to be matched with clients. The registry interviewed the nurse prior to her joining the registry, and also required the nurse to undergo a multi-day training presented by Beta. Beta sends the nurse a listing each week with potential clients and requires the nurse to fill out a form with Beta prior to contacting any clients. Beta also requires that the nurse adhere to a certain wage range and the nurse cannot provide care during any weekend hours. The nurse must inform Beta if she is hired by a client and must contact Beta if she will miss scheduled work with any client. In this scenario, the degree of control exercised by the registry is indicative of an employment relationship.


    The bottom line is: the issue as to whether a worker may be classified as an independent contractor needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. 

    You would probably be best served by consulting an attorney experienced in FLSA litigation as to what your rights may be under the act if you feel you have been improperly characterized as an independent contractor.

    We have handled many of these cases successfully and would be glad to review your case for no charge. feel free to contact our Tennessee Employment Law Office and we will be glad to answer any questions you may have about your rights under the FLSA and other federal and state laws.

According to the United States Department of Labor, minimum wage would need to  $11.00 per hour to equal the same spending power to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. Currently the minimum wage is only $7.25 and for tipped employees, it remains $2.13. It has in fact, not been increased since 1991. $2.13 in 2105 is equivalent in spending power as $1.21 in 1991.

So many workers in America rely on their tips to survive. Servers, delivery drivers, bartenders, hotel workers, etc.  Unfortunately for these workers, the law often allows for employers to pay them at a rate much lower than the standard minimum wage. The Fair Labor Standards Act permits an employer to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees equal to the difference between the required cash wage (which must be at least $2.13) and the federal minimum wage. Tipped employees are those who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 per month in tips.

One thing that needs to be clear to all tipped employees: “Tips are the property of the employee”.

That is not to say that sometimes Tip pools may be used by these establishments; more importantly, however, is the fundamental rule of tip pools: No employers are allowed in the pool. Tips belong to employees, not to the company. And, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law that governs wages and hours, “employer” includes not just the owner or officers of a company, but anyone who acts in the employer’s interests regarding an employee. In other words, managers count as employers who can’t share in a tip pool.

However, whether this rule applies to a particular workplace depends on the manager’s job duties. Plenty of employers refer to low-level employees as “assistant managers” or “shift supervisors,” without giving the employees the authority that would ordinarily go along with such a title. These employees typically do much of the same work as line employees, with a few extra responsibilities (such as scheduling, deciding when employees may take their breaks, and so on). Despite their name, these employees probably can share in a tip pool, because they aren’t true managers as the law intends the term.

If your manager is taking part of your tips, or if you feel like the tip pool you are forced to take part in is illegal, feel free to contact our Tennessee Employment Law Office and we will be glad to answer any questions you may have. We have successfully represented many individuals and groups of employees in helping them recover what is rightfully theirs under the law.


Whether you are going to a forty an hour a week job that you have been employed in for many years or whether you are working at an internship for maybe a little pay and some more experience the Fair Labor Standards Act and minimum wage laws still need to be followed. Unfortunately, many companies and businesses find ways around paying their employees what they deserve and what they should be paid by law by not properly logging the hours they work, telling them to take parts while not on the clock or classifying improperly so they are exempt from overtime pay laws and requirements. If you or someone you work with feel that you have been improperly paid the wage you earned or were not paid properly for overtime hours, then you should speak to a Tennessee employment and overtime pay lawyer with the Higgins Firm. We will work with you to see to it that you get the compensation you deserve for the hard work you have done.

According to this lawsuit, the plaintiffs worked as much as forty hours a week for free on programs like the Howard Stern Show and other Sirius programs. This was a violation of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state minimum wage laws. The company stated that it still believes its internships were legal, but settled to avoid costly litigation according to reports. Representatives for either side of the lawsuit were not available for comments.

This proposed settlement comes a month after the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the applicable test to determine whether unpaid internships are legal in lawsuits against Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group Inc. In this case involving unpaid internships, Sirius XM Radio Inc. has agreed to pay as much as $1.3 million to settle litigation by some 1,800 ex-interns. The Sirius settlement must still be approved by a judge before it is finalized.

Unfortunately, many businesses often find ways around paying their employees what they are entitled to under the law. They may ask employees to clock out early and still do work, they may ask them to take an unpaid lunch hour, they may give them a title they feel makes them exempt from overtime pay and minimum wage requirements such as referring to them as an independent contractor, executive, manager or administrator, or they may not pay them for work related tasks such as meetings, sending e-mails, running errands for the company or returning phone calls. Whatever the reason may be, companies and businesses are under a legal obligation to pay their employees fair wages and overtime pay for hours they work in a single work week and for any hours that they may work over forty in one week. If you or someone you know feels like you have been denied the pay that is rightfully yours by law then you should contact one of our experienced and knowledgeable Tennessee employment and minimum wage lawyers at the Higgins Firm. We care about our clients and understand how important your pay is to you and to your families. We will review your case, answer any questions you may have and make sure you get the compensation you need for this violation of your rights. We will also fight on your behalf to make sure these companies are held responsible for their actions and for any violations.

Please contact us today online or by calling 800.705.2121 to discuss any questions you may have as well as your legal options.

Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is already illegal according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This groundbreaking decision by the EEOC declares that employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers is unlawful in all 50 states. The commission already found that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity, protecting trans employees. According to the act, Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including, the Supreme Court has ruled, irrational sex stereotyping.
The EEOC states that if an employer discriminates against a gay employee for being too “feminine” or a lesbian employee for being too “butch”, this is illegal sex stereotyping. Now the commission states that, if an employer does not approve of a lesbian employee’s sexual orientation, they are objecting to the fact that a woman is romantically attracted to another woman. This objection is based on irrational, stereotyped views of femininity and womanhood. If an employer discriminates against his lesbian employee, that discrimination is based in large part on her sex, and on his anger that she does not fit into her gender role.

The EEOC also stated that, sexual orientation discrimination is “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.” When a homophobic employer mistreats a gay male employee, he does so because he dislikes the fact that his employee dates other men. This means that the employer took that employee’s sex into account while making the decision to treat him unequally. Such discrimination is obviously sex-based and illegal under Title VII.

The decision made by the EEOC only applies to federal employee’s claims as of right now but the EEOC represents private employees, as well, and helps employers and employees settle discrimination claims without a lawsuit. According to the new guidelines, all sexual orientation discrimination will be considered illegal, empowering gay private employees to lodge discrimination complaints. Until the Supreme Court weighs in, lower courts may choose to accept or reject the EEOC’s presentation of Title VII.

Unfortunately even with laws and guidelines in place workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender, age, or disability occurs all too often. If you or someone you work with feels you have been turned down for a job, terminated or discriminated against in any way in the workplace, it is advised that you contact a compassionate and experienced employment and discrimination lawyer at the Higgins Firm. We will listen to you and answer any questions and concerns you may have. We know that you work hard for your money and We will fight for you and see to it that you get the get any compensation you are entitled to for this violation of your rights. We will also make sure the people or company responsible is held accountable for their actions.

When people go to work each day to make money for their families and loved ones they expect to be paid fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately, even though it is illegal, some companies and businesses discriminate against employees based on age, gender, disability and sexual orientation. If you feel that you have been discriminated against or fired at your workplace for any of these reasons, then it is important that you speak to a Tennessee employment and discrimination lawyer with the Higgins Firm. We will review your case and get you the compensation that is rightfully yours by law for the discrimination you have faced. You can contact us online or by calling 800.705.2121 to discuss your case and any questions you might have.

If you are working over forty hours a week and are not currently eligible for overtime pay or wages, you may be in luck. The Department of Labor and the Obama administration are on the verge of changing an overtime pay rule that would raise the current overtime threshold of $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. This would extend overtime pay to millions of American employees. If you feel that you have wrongly denied overtime pay, you should speak to a Tennessee overtime pay and employment lawyer with the Higgins Firm. We will fight for you to help you get the compensation that is rightfully yours.

Currently, the law states that any salaried worker who earns below the threshold must receive overtime. The current threshold of $23,660, or $455 per week, lies below the poverty line for a family of four. The new rule would raise that to $50,440 or $970 per week, which would be closer to the median household income. This rule change would mean that more American workers would qualify for overtime pay. The current overtime threshold is not indexed for inflation and only been updated once since 1975. It only covers twelve percent of salaried employees. If the threshold is raised it would bring it back in line with the 1975 threshold, after inflation.

The current rules for overtime pay exclude white collar workers with titles such as “executive, administrative and professional” from receiving overtime pay. This means that an office worker or secretary might be exempt from overtime pay. Many businesses and companies get around paying their employees overtime pay by giving them nominal supervisory responsibilities. Although the Department of Labor had stated the new rule would make changes to this definition allowing more workers to qualify for overtime pay benefits, the proposed regulation did not include this change.

President Obama recently opined in an op-ed article, “Right now, too many Americans are working long days for less pay than they deserve. That’s partly because we’ve failed to update overtime regulations for years.”

Those opposed to this new rule state that it will kill jobs and force employers to cut hours for employees who receive a salary. Many companies such as McDonald’s have computers in place to alert them when an employee has worked forty hours so they can send them home and avoid paying them overtime benefits.

Opponents of this new proposed rule feel that this will happen in many more businesses if the overtime threshold is expanded. If employees’ hours are cut to avoid overtime pay requirements, this could also make them ineligible for other benefits. Aloysius Hogan, a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, said it will have a “job killing effect.” Hogan said businesses will be incentivized to lay off higher-paid executives and replace them with lower-paid workers.

Many hard-working Americans are struggling to make ends meet to support their families and their loved ones and if you are denied your overtime pay benefits, this can make things even more difficult. If you or someone you care about has been denied overtime pay for hours you have worked over forty in a week, then you should contact an experienced overtime pay and employment attorney at the Higgins Firm. We will review your case, answer any questions you may have and work with you to make sure you receive the compensation you deserve for the hard work that you do every single day.

Please contact us today online or by calling 800.705.2121 to discuss your legal options.