An employee who frequently complained about his work hours and lack of overtime pay, then subsequently told to accept his working conditions without complaining, resign, or be terminated has stated a claim for constructive discharge in retaliation for asserting his Fair Labor Standards Act right to overtime pay, a federal district court rules.

The Court says that it does not find that the overtime the employee worked and the lack of overtime pay for those hours to be “objectively intolerable.” However, the threat to terminate him if he did continue to assert his right to FLSA overtime pay “would be objectively intolerable to a reasonable person,” the Court observes, and that a reasonable person in the worker’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Ellis v. Yum! Brands, Inc.

The U.S. Dept. of Labor has issued two new non-administrator opinion letters, one clarifying the time keeping requirements for online computer-based training performed in an employee’s home, and the other stating that the minimum salary for an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act cannot be prorated when the exempt employee’s hours are reduced.

Loan officers who were classified as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and were paid minimum wage and guaranteed overtime which was treated as a draw and offset from future commissions, may be entitled to additional compensation rules a federal district court in Minnesota. Under the FLSA, retail or service establishments are exempt from overtime provisions if the regular rate of pay for the employee is more than one-and-a-half times the applicable minimum hourly rate, and more than half of the employee’s compensation for at least one month represents commissions on goods or services. The court determined that the mortgage broker was part of the financial industry, and did not qualify for the retail or service exemption. Furthermore, the pay plan violated the FLSA since the rate paid to the loan officers fluctuated with the commissions earned. “Loan officers receive regular commissions; they receive a percentage of their sales,” the court said. “Thus, the alleged regular rate of pay of minimum wage is not a ‘regular’ rate because the commissions earned are part of the regular rate.” Saunders v. Ace Mortgage Funding, Inc.

In an unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirms a Dept. of Labor rule which exempted “companionship workers” from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act, even if the workers were employed by a third party agency.

The case involved a worker employed by Long Island Care at Home, Ltd., to provide “companionship services” to elderly and infirm clients. The worker claimed that her employer failed to pay her the minimum wages and overtime due to her under the FLSA and New York law. The DOL’s rule exempting home care workers from coverage includes those paid by third parties, such as home health agencies. The Second Circuit found that the rule was unenforceable. The Supreme Court disagrees with the appeals court, holding that the DOL was entitled to deference in making and interpreting its rules. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. V. Coke.