We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 28

Dressing the part is not enough: 8th Circuit decides that changing into uniforms does not start the “continuous workday”
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • September 4 2013

Taking up a question the Supreme Court recently declined to consider, the Eighth Circuit on Friday addressed the types of activities that may start


Taking a pass on a “reclass” class (or collective): court denies reclassified employees’ certification motion
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2015

The decision whether to reclassify employees whose exempt status is arguable can sometimes create something of a double bind for employers:


DOL shows integrity in supporting employer on compensability of time spent in security screenings
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2014

The Department of Labor surprised employers last week by weighing in on Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, which is currently pending before


Trifles and tribulations: Supreme Court decides meaning of “changing clothes” under 203(o) of the FLSA
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2014

The Supreme Court ruled today that steelworkers are not entitled to pay for time spent changing into flame-retardant suits, hardhats, gloves, and


Supreme Court rejects DOL's interpretation and finds pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify for the outside sales exemption
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • June 18 2012

This morning, a divided Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito upholding decades of industry practice and finding that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs


Supreme Court update: Christopher v. SmithKline -- are petitioners signaling concern?
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • June 14 2012

As we await the Supreme Court’s decision in Christopher v. SmithKline following the April 16, 2012 argument, counsel for the plaintiffs (Petitioners before the Supreme Court) filed a letter with the Court that appeared on the docket dated May 25


A Rose employee by any other name? Talk show interns sue for pay
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • March 16 2012

Last month, this Blog reported on a pair of recent lawsuits filed by former unpaid interns for The Hearst Corp and Fox Searchlight Pictures claiming that they should have been paid for work they performed for the fashion magazine Harper’s Bazaar and on production of the 2010 film “Black Swan.”


It will be a "clothes" call: Supreme Court to decide if work clothes, are "clothes"
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • February 21 2013

Are work clothes "clothes" under the FLSA? And how much weight should be given to the Department of Labor's opinion on this issue, especially when


The trouble with treble: First Circuit upholds Massachusetts mandatory treble damages law, affirms class certification, and interprets tip pooling law
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • November 12 2012

On Friday November 9, 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision interpreting two key Massachusetts wage and hour statutes, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 152A (the “Tip Statute”), which regulates gratuities, service charges, and tip pools, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 150, which provides for mandatory treble damages for wage violations


First Circuit upholds Massachusetts mandatory treble damages law, affirms class certification, and interprets tip pooling law
  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2012

On Friday November 9, 2012, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision interpreting two key Massachusetts wage and hour statutes, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 152A (the "Tip Statute"), which regulates gratuities, service charges, and tip pools, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 150, which provides for mandatory treble damages for wage violations