Milwaukee-based Northwestern Mutual denies the allegations, pointing to a similar trial it was involved in last year. In that case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Northwestern Mutual, saying it had the right to retain certain employees as independent contractors.

The plaintiffs named in the San Diego lawsuit contend that they had little to no autonomy and decision making capabilities. They also allege that they had to work more than eight hours per day and more than 40 hours per week without overtime. All three plaintiffs were employed as financial representatives of Northwestern Mutual, two of them in California and the other in Georgia.

In addition to financial compensation, the plaintiffs also seek the reclassification of hundreds of former and current Northwestern Mutual representatives from independent contractors to full-time employees.

Because the Fair Labor Standards Act extends only to company employees, some corporations will classify employees as independent contractors to avoid FLSA rules and save money. Corporations that classify employees as independent contractors not only avoid paying minimum wage and overtime, they also avoid paying state and federal taxes on those “exempt” employees.

Through its independently owned agencies, Northwestern Mutual employs approximately 7,000 financial representatives in the U.S. The company provides insurance, annuities, mutual funds, and, ironically, employee benefit services.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › Northwestern Mutual reps sue company for FLSA violations

Buffalo Rock is one of the country’s largest privately owned Pepsi-Cola bottlers with 14 distribution centers in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Its distribution area covers a population of 6.5 million.

Employees represented by the suit contend that Buffalo Rock violated the Fair Labor Standards Act when it failed to pay them and others in the company for work performed over the regular 40 hour work week.

“Buffalo Rock knowingly, intentionally and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees the overtime compensation to which defendant Buffalo Rock knew they were entitled,” the lawsuit says.

Buffalo Rock maintains that the FLSA’s overtime clause doesn’t apply to the overtime hours clocked by the workers represented by the lawsuit.

Provisions for overtime pay are a common basis for many lawsuits citing FLSA violations. FLSA regulations exempt certain workers, such as executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees, from overtime. However, according to the Department of Labor, “employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.” Misclassification of employees, unclear employment agreements, or simple misunderstanding of the law are common violations of FLSA provisions.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › class action filed against Alabama company for FLSA overtime violations

The store managers, represented in the class action lawsuit Stillman v. Staples, Inc., charged the retail giant with violating the law when it classified them as exempt and then failed to pay them for overtime. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs and found that Staples had acted willfully in breaking the law. The verdict came after a six-week trial. The amount awarded does not include attorneys’ fees and costs, which the plaintiffs may claim pursuant to FLSA laws.

Staples spokesman Paul Capelli said that the company may appeal the jury’s decision. “We firmly believe that we’re fully compliant with the law,” he said.

The lawsuit was one of many collective and class action lawsuits alleging the misclassification of store managers have been filed against Staples. It was also not the first suit filed against Staples for violations of the FLSA. In November 2007, Staples settled a class-action lawsuit in California for $38 million. That suit related to the classification of assistant managers by Staples stores in California and the retail chain’s failure to compensate the managers for overtime work.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › Jury sides with plaintiffs in Staples class action lawsuit

Hourly wage workers from Tyson’s slaughterhouses in Holcomb and Emporia, Kansas, originally filed the case in May 1006. Together, the Kansas operations employ some 3,300 hourly workers. The workers allege that Tyson owes them millions of dollars in back pay for all the time they spend on the job.

The key issue in the case is whether Tyson should have to compensate workers for all of the time they spend putting on and removing protective gear, cleaning equipment, waiting for production lines to start, walking to and from work, break, and changing quarters, and working on unpaid meal breaks.

Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the workers are seeking compensation for overtime. They are also seeking compensation for unpaid “straight time” at work under the Kansas Wage Payment Act.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, production workers must be compensated for doing anything that is “integral and indispensable” to the “principal activity” of the job they perform.

The ruling influenced Lungstrom’s decision last year to reject a motion by Tyson for summary judgment. In doing so, Lungstrum “ruled that whether standard protective clothing was ‘integral and indispensable’ to Tyson employees’ work was a factual question for a jury to decide,” according to a report in the Kansas City Star.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › Class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods will proceed