The Regular Rate of Pay May Not Be As Obvious As It Seems

This blog has previously addressed various complications in establishing the regular rate of pay on which the calculation of overtime is based. See our November 21, 2016 post Importance of Establishing An Employee’s Regular Rate of Pay here..   To recap, overtime pay is calculated at the rate of one and one half times an employee’s regular rate of pay.  The regular rate of pay seems simple, since the pay of a non-exempt employee is usually stated in terms of an hourly rate, and indeed Connecticut law requires an employer to advise an employee of the “rate of remuneration” at the time of hire.

What makes things complicated is the requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act that the regular rate for calculation of overtime include all compensation paid to an employee, subject to certain exceptions.  A common example is premium pay for work outside normal working hours; in other words, a shift differential.  An employee with base pay of $12 per hour who works from 9-to-5 has an overtime rate of $18, but if he works the late shift one week, and receives a $2 hourly shift differential, his overtime rate for that week will be $21.

Other add-ons to the base rate are less obvious than shift differentials. For example, some employers have policies which reward employees who do not need to enroll in the employer’s health care plan (typically because they have coverage under a spouse’s plan).  One of our clients pays an amount equal to 50% of the single coverage premium to employees who sign a waiver of participation in the company health plan, thus sharing the cost savings with the employee and providing an inducement to end unnecessary double-coverage.

Does the employer have to include these payments when it calculates the employees’ regular rate of pay?  In a recent case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F. 3d. 890 (9th. Cir. 2016) (which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review), the City allowed employees, upon submission of proof of alternate medical coverage, to receive a cash payment for the unused portion of health benefit allotments.   However, the City did not include these payments in the calculation of an employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime.

The Court held that the cash payments were in the nature of compensation for services rendered and should have been included in the overtime calculation.  Of course, employer-provided health benefits are part of an employee’s overall compensation package, but the Fair Labor Standards Act provides a separate exclusion from the regular rate of pay for money paid to an insurance provider or health benefit plan.  However, when the cost of the insurance benefit is merely used to establish a formula for an extra cash payment, that payment is more like a non-discretionary bonus, and must be included in the regular rate of pay on which overtime pay is calculated.

Since these opt-out payments are not required by law, an employer concerned about the increased cost of overtime could simply reduce the formula for the cash payment (that is, it could pay employees who decline coverage a smaller proportion of the health premium as an incentive payment) and balance its overall payroll budget.  But the City’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, plus a finding by the Court that the City did not even investigate the possible compliance issue, cost the City not only the additional overtime wages due the affected employees, but also double that amount in liquidated damages, along with the employees’ attorneys’ fees.

The take-away here does not have to be mastery of the complexities of wage and hour regulation.  The basic premise is that the regular rate of pay for overtime calculation may not be as obvious as it seems, so if in doubt, investigate and seek legal advice under the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or in this case, one and one-half times the cost of cure plus liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees.

Posted in Compensation

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page