<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Wage and Hour Articles</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/9</link>
<description>Employment law articles discussing wage and hour issues, including those under the FLSA.</description>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 09:05:56 EST</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-us</language>


<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/WageAndHourArticles" /><feedburner:info uri="wageandhourarticles" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
<title>Seventh Circuit: Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Are Exempt Administrative Employees</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/powKJWdvdBc/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12395</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The Seventh Circuit has weighed in on the employers’ side of the pharmaceutical sales representative exemption issue, finding that pharmaceutical sales representatives at Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and Eli Lilly &amp; Company were properly classified as exempt under the administrative exemption to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly &amp; Co., the Seventh Circuit issued a consolidated opinion in two cases in which the district courts had reached opposite results, with one court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and the other ruling against.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/d7layCi3FcawVCHuuQwg_HEfX3U/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/d7layCi3FcawVCHuuQwg_HEfX3U/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/d7layCi3FcawVCHuuQwg_HEfX3U/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/d7layCi3FcawVCHuuQwg_HEfX3U/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/powKJWdvdBc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12395</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Seventh Circuit Concludes that "Travel Time" Following Clothing Change Is Not Compensable, Setting Up a Circuit Split</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/7O_QUbRqCB0/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12382</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>In a case that explicitly acknowledges a consequential circuit split, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that the time that an employee spends walking from the locker room to his work station after changing into work clothes is not compensable if the applicable collective bargaining agreement does not require compensation for the time spent changing clothes.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NJisjKDIOhXqYYOg1mn_3hog4Bk/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NJisjKDIOhXqYYOg1mn_3hog4Bk/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NJisjKDIOhXqYYOg1mn_3hog4Bk/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/NJisjKDIOhXqYYOg1mn_3hog4Bk/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/7O_QUbRqCB0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12382</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives Found to be Exempt by Seventh Circuit</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/c6f6yIH2lvE/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12354</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The Seventh Circuit recently weighed in on whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt under the FLSA in Susan Schaeffer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly &amp; Company.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Mj5pwQXQk41VM7nXtEwI8MlDiI0/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Mj5pwQXQk41VM7nXtEwI8MlDiI0/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Mj5pwQXQk41VM7nXtEwI8MlDiI0/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Mj5pwQXQk41VM7nXtEwI8MlDiI0/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/c6f6yIH2lvE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12354</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>READ THIS If You're Hiring Minors This Summer!</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/_n_wWvua7dM/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12334</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Employers who will be hiring minors under 18 years old should review in advance the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's prohibitions and restrictions applying to those workers.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/N1gzjHnyHlmqR-bbe40n6ihnYHo/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/N1gzjHnyHlmqR-bbe40n6ihnYHo/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/N1gzjHnyHlmqR-bbe40n6ihnYHo/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/N1gzjHnyHlmqR-bbe40n6ihnYHo/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/_n_wWvua7dM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12334</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Recent Settlements Agreeing to Pay Overtime for Misclassification of Employees</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/zSVlwCgvgX8/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12330</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Misclassification of employees continues to bring a lot of headaches to employers.   I have worked with a wide variety of businesses on this issue – from Fortune 500 to “mom and pop” companies.  Each has its own way of doing things in this area and monitoring classification compliance is pretty low on the to-do list.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/onFX9E_w4mzCc3nz9zGyMbtmZO0/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/onFX9E_w4mzCc3nz9zGyMbtmZO0/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/onFX9E_w4mzCc3nz9zGyMbtmZO0/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/onFX9E_w4mzCc3nz9zGyMbtmZO0/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/zSVlwCgvgX8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12330</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>More Tips On Labor Costs And The FLSA</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/Ies4kSc0khk/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12281</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Readers of our earlier post have asked whether there are additional ways to control or even reduce labor costs consistently with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  There are, and we will again divide our discussion between mistaken beliefs and possible opportunities.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Rrlqy5DEpiHKqGe83_8ibiEEXwQ/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Rrlqy5DEpiHKqGe83_8ibiEEXwQ/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Rrlqy5DEpiHKqGe83_8ibiEEXwQ/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Rrlqy5DEpiHKqGe83_8ibiEEXwQ/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/Ies4kSc0khk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12281</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Paying On a "Salary Basis" Requires Actual Payments</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/CxgRi1mquMI/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12272</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>As we have discussed before, to be considered an exempt executive, administrative, or professional employee, most employees must be paid on a "salary basis," meaning that they receive a fixed salary for each workweek regardless of the number of hours worked or the quality or quantity of work performed. In a ruling that at first blush seems fairly obvious, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that actually paying an employee's salary is a necessary condition to meeting this standard. Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchies, LLC.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7tiMPWRxqnTCNClmSGOyNuWyso/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7tiMPWRxqnTCNClmSGOyNuWyso/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7tiMPWRxqnTCNClmSGOyNuWyso/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/S7tiMPWRxqnTCNClmSGOyNuWyso/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/CxgRi1mquMI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12272</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>Internship Programs Present Potential Wage and Hour Risks for Employers</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/0bQQ0BNRoe0/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12223</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>As summer approaches, many employers are making plans to welcome an incoming class of summer interns. Historically, internship programs have offered employers a valuable opportunity to meet and evaluate potential new hires. For their part, interns often receive valuable experience and the opportunity to make connections that may lead to future employment. In short, internships are generally seen as a "win-win" situation.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IjGO3abLg_y3AGtlZ_EHiUcHSVc/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IjGO3abLg_y3AGtlZ_EHiUcHSVc/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IjGO3abLg_y3AGtlZ_EHiUcHSVc/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/IjGO3abLg_y3AGtlZ_EHiUcHSVc/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/0bQQ0BNRoe0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12223</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>The Buddha and the Fair Labor Standards Act</title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/8cn2Uds_Dww/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12220</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Let's talk the Buddha and the Fair Labor Standards Act. First, the Buddha. I just finished "The Buddha Walks Into A Bar. . . : A Guide To Life For A New Generation" by Lodro Rinzler. In keeping with his new generation theme, he tackles Buddhism and smart phones
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/WCI96zE5fo_Uf3SEl4PfjrkPNEk/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/WCI96zE5fo_Uf3SEl4PfjrkPNEk/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/WCI96zE5fo_Uf3SEl4PfjrkPNEk/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/WCI96zE5fo_Uf3SEl4PfjrkPNEk/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/8cn2Uds_Dww" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12220</feedburner:origLink></item>
<item>
<title>The Supreme Court Weighs Overtime for Pharmaceutical Representatives </title>
<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~3/2274TO3BN8U/newscount.php</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 12187</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>webmaster@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., a case to determine whether pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) qualify for the outside sales exemption under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Supreme Court’s opinion will settle a split between the Second and Ninth Circuits in which the Second Circuit held that PSRs are not making sales under the FLSA and – in the underlying case – the Ninth Circuit held that they are, qualifying them as outside sales employees. A broader issue to be decided by the Court is the level of deference owed to a regulatory agency that announces new substantive positions through amicus curiae filings.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Xu3ZPLcmjSiYi1sGX8btiGFDSJc/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Xu3ZPLcmjSiYi1sGX8btiGFDSJc/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Xu3ZPLcmjSiYi1sGX8btiGFDSJc/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/Xu3ZPLcmjSiYi1sGX8btiGFDSJc/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/WageAndHourArticles/~4/2274TO3BN8U" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=12187</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>

</rss>

