Pennsylvania Based Employees May Be Entitled to Overtime for work in Foreign Countries

Posted on October 2, 2009 by Adam Santucci

Recently, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania delivered some potentially bad news to Pennsylvania employers. In Truman v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., the Court held that an employee may be entitled to overtime payments for time worked in foreign countries under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The plaintiff, Michael Truman, worked for D.B.A., Inc. for a little over a year, and during that time worked in both England and in Canada. Truman sought overtime pay for overtime hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week in both England and Canada.

At the summary judgment stage, the Truman admitted that he was not entitled to overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) which specifically exempts work in foreign countries from overtime pay entitlements. However, Truman argued that under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act he was entitled to such overtime payments because the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act provided for benefits exceeding those under the FLSA. The Court stated that unlike the FLSA, there was no specific exemption for working in foreign countries under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Court also noted that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously held that work in other states by Pennsylvania-based employees was covered by Pennsylvania Law. The Court concluded that there is nothing within the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act that restricts the benefits of the Act to work performed within the United States.

The Court also noted that the FLSA allows for state laws to provide greater protection than allowed under the FLSA, and therefore, there was no preemption issue in this case. The Court noted that there was no implied foreign work exemption under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and therefore, for Pennsylvania residents working for Pennsylvania-based employers, there is no exemption from overtime pay requirements for work in foreign countries. The Court said that the analysis under the FLSA and the Pennsylvania laws is only identical if the language of the FLSA and state laws is identical. In this case, the analysis was different because the language was not identical, and therefore, the Court allowed the Plaintiff to move forward on his claim that he was entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in a foreign country under Pennsylvania law.

This decision has the potential to be costly for some Pennsylvania employers. How the courts will define who is a Pennsylvania resident and who is a Pennsylvania based employee for purposes of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Law and the Pennsylvania Wage Collection Act is unclear. These, and other issues, will need to be defined by the Courts in the future. In the meantime, employers are well advised to review their compensation practices in light of this decision.

Tags: , , ,

Injunction "No-Match" for DHS Rulemaking

Posted on November 3, 2008 by Rick L. Etter

On October 23, 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an advance copy of its supplemental final no-match safe harbor regulation initially issued in August 2007. The original regulation was set to take effect in September 2007 but was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The revised regulation is expected to be published in the Federal Register any day, and will take effect immediately. Of course, it is possible (even likely) that another lawsuit may be filed seeking to block this final regulation.

While the substance of the regulation has not changed, DHS did address the two main concerns that lead the court to enjoin the original regulation. First, the preamble of the new regulation clarifies that employers will be considered to have constructive knowledge only if they receive a no-match letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA). That is, DHS will not impute constructive knowledge based on any other communication from the SSA. Second, DHS explained that it would not take action based on no-match letters involving employees hired before November 6, 1986 (the date the Immigration Reform and Control Act was enacted).

The revised regulation outlines the steps an employer must take in order to benefit from a “safe harbor” if the employee named in a no-match letter turns out to be an unauthorized worker. Upon receipt of a no-match letter, the employer should check internal records and either make appropriate corrections or ask the employee to correct the discrepancy within 90 days. Once the discrepancy is resolved, the employer should update the relevant I-9 paperwork and notify agencies of the correction. If the discrepancy cannot be resolved within 90 days, the employer must complete a new I-9 form for the employee by the 93rd day. In completing this new I-9, the employer may not accept any document with the social security number contained in the no-match letter. In addition, the new verification document must include a photo. If the employer is still unable to verify the identity and employment authorization of the employee, the safest course of action is to terminate the employee, or risk facing charges.

Employers should develop and implement a policy to ensure compliance with the process described in our August 2007 Employer Alert. Employers should note, however, that no-match letters were not issued in 2007 and will most likely not be issued in 2008.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,