The Fair Labor Standards Act is a United States federal law established in 1938 that applies to employees engaged in interstate commerce or employed by an enterprise engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce. The FSLA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed time and a half for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor."

On August 23, 2004, controversial changes to the FLSA's overtime regulations went into effect, making substantial modifications to the definition of an "exempt" employee. Low level working supervisors all throughout American industry were reclassified as "executives" and lost overtime rights. Attempts in Congress to overturn the new regulations were unsuccessful.

Several exemptions exist that relieve an employer from having to meet the statutory minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping requirements. The largest exception applies to executive exemptions applicable to professional, administrative and executive employees. Exemptions are narrowly construed; an employer must prove that the employees fit plainly and unmistakably within the exemptions terms.

The FLSA applies to any individual employed by an employer but not to independent contractors or volunteers because they are not considered "employees" under the FLSA. Still, an employer cannot simply exempt workers from the FLSA by calling them independent contractors, and many employers have illegally misclassified their workers as independent contractors.

Beasley Allen is currently working on several cases related to both executive exemption and independent contractor exemption claims.

In one of these cases, store managers were classified as executive exempt - but technically they do not qualify under executive exemption to be paid salary. Their primary duty is not management, but more daily upkeep and running of the store, serving customers.

These "store mangers" work 70-80 hours per week - almost like another full-time employee that would have been doing the tasks they're being assigned - stocking shelves, cleaning, working with customers (service).

The "store manager" is given a small amount of payroll dollars but if they don't staff a certain number of hours, the store can't be maintained. However, they are not allowed to hire additional employees unless a District Manager approves. As a result, the store manager is obligated to work extra hours himself/herself in order to meet demands of the store as a result of understaffing.

Store (corporate) dictates procedures for the store that MUST be met, duties that HAVE to be completed for its "successful" operation. The store manager is left to complete all tasks on the checklist but is not given resources (people/staff) to do this.

Most of the stores are located in small towns, where there aren't a lot of other job opportunities for the store manager. Additionally, the store manager feels a loyalty to the store and the community he/she serves.

The store argues the employee's primary duty is management. However, all employees are hired at minimum wage and receive automatic raises. The store manager has no authority to give a raise for good performance or to fire / discipline an employee without district manager's approval. The district manager also can tell store manager to cut employees' hours to meet budget - hard to keep good employees, hire new as a result.

The District Manager is in the true store management position; the employee called "store manager" has no authority, but is held responsible for meeting all corporate requirements and standards, regardless of employee base / staff. If store manager doesn't meet corporate requirements, he/she faces dismissal.

Another case currently being pursued by Beasley Allen addresses the issue of classifying employees as independent contractors.

There is a trend nationally to outsource work to independent contractors. This pattern of classifying employees as independent contractors / contract labor allows employers to avoid paying certain expenses that are normally paid by an employer. For example, a company can avoid paying overtime wages, training pay, workers compensation benefits, certain taxes and other employer benefits.

This can be seen in the case of LiveOps.

The Plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated Home Agents (1) were improperly classified as "independent contractors" by LiveOps, Inc., (2) that LiveOps, Inc. controlled most, if not all, major aspects of the Home Agent's job, (3) that they were not paid for any training time associated with the job at LiveOps, Inc., (4) that they worked many hours without receiving the equivalent of the federal minimum wage, and, (5) that LiveOps does not pay federally required overtime pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Plaintiffs allege that by not paying them correctly, LiveOps, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939, 29 U.S.C. §216(b).

Read more here: http://www.beasleyallen.com/focus/LiveOps-Class-Action/