In ruling that College Athletes may be entitled to sue for unpaid compensable work and recover minimum wages, plus double damages called liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, for the prior 2-years (3-years if violations were found to have been willful), the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Johnson v. NCAA, held "that college athletes may be employees under the FLSA when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) “necessarily and primarily for the [other party’s] benefit,” Tenn. Coal, 321 U.S. at 598, (c) under that party’s control or right of control, id., and (d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits,” Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 471 U.S. at 301 (quotation omitted)."

This is the biggest decision to impact college sports since the NCAA responded to the SCOTUS decision in NCAA v. Alston by allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) with direct endorsement deals followed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) taking the position that college athletes are employees for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and forming unions / engaging in concerted activity. 

Yet, the biggest takeaway from Johnson v. NCAA isn't the newsworthy headline about college athletes, but instead, its analysis of what types of work must be paid, for everyone. 

Simply, the Circuit Court has instructed us that in most instances, "efforts that provide tangible benefits to identifiable institutions deserve compensation." In fact, the Circuit Court dispensed with the NCAA's nonsensical argument that the students were paid in other forms by receiving "increased discipline, a stronger work ethic, improved strategic thinking, time management, leadership, and goal setting skills, and a greater ability to work collaboratively" because those benefits "are all exactly the kinds of skills one would typically acquire in a work environment." In all, the Circuit instructed to always "look to the economic realities of the relationship," "upon the circumstances of the whole activity," when determining if a person is defined as an employee entitled to payment for work. Additionally, it is true that an employee must be promised or expect compensation for their work, but importantly, that compensation is not limited to money and can be instead, the receipt of in-kind benefits, where the promise or expectation can be implied and needn't be expressly stated / written. 

Johnson is a big win for unpaid workers everywhere in the US. 

Ready for a big jump in being entitled to overtime pay, which is 1.5 times pay?

The Department of Labor has set new effective earnings thresholds to be entitled to overtime pay per 29 CFR 541.  

Starting on January 1, 2025, we are moving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from an entitlement to overtime pay for those making under $35,586 to those making under $58,656 per year ($1,128 per week). Note that this threshold does not apply to employees who are "bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . or in the capacity of [an] outside salesman," which terms are defined at 29 CFR 541.

These numbers are particularly important because a worker who is not paid properly can recover 2X back wages (liquidated damages) on unpaid overtime from the prior 2 years. 

If you are interested in wage and hour claims, or better yet if you are a business owner or manager, you are going to want to read this. 

On October 13, 2022, the Department of Labor opened the comment period, which runs through November 28, 2022, for it's revised analysis to determine if an individual is an employee or an independent contractor for a wage and hour claim (i.e., misclassification claim). As a reminder, independent contractors are also known as self-employed workers and freelancers, and are considered to be in business for themselves and therefore, not entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

However, if an employer gets this wrong, by considering an employee an independent contractor, tht employer can be subject to penalty, called liquidated damages, and more. It's a catastrophic mistake that really needs to be avoided at all costs. 

The Proposed Rulemaking is available here in full.

Comments can be made electronically at Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.

In summary, the Proposed Rulemaking is attempting to reassert the Economic Reality Test, where "[t]he ultimate inquiry is whether, as a matter of economic reality, the worker is either economically dependent on the employer for work (and is thus an employee) or is in business for themself (and is thus an independent contractor)." In analyzing the test, the following, non-exclusive facts are generally examined, including: "the opportunity for profit or loss, investment, permanency, the degree of control by the employer over the worker, whether the work is an integral part of the employer's business, and skill and initiative." Under the Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Labor will examine the factors in the Economic Reality Test by returned to a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis rather than focusing on core factors. No longer will two factors be considered most probative and carry greater weight. Now, all factors matter and should be analyzed when determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee who is subject to rights under the FLSA. 

During the last two weeks of his Presidency, Trump's Department of Labor just revised the test for whether an individual is an independent contractor or employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

This is significant because employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime whereas independent contractors are not. 

If an employer misclassifies a staff member as an independent contractor when such staff member should be classified an employee, it can result in a devastating blow to the employer who will be exposed to statutory penalties, back pay, attorneys' fees and more. 

Now, Trump's government is using the "economic reality" test to determine employee status. 

According to the government, "the ultimate inquiry is whether, as a matter of economic reality, the worker is dependent on a particular individual, business, or organization for work (and is thus and employee) or is in business for him- or herself (and is thus an an independent contractor)." 

Under this test, the Department of Labor or a Court hearing the case will look to five distinct factors to answer the test. However, two of those factors now have more probative value in answering the question than the rest. These two key factors are:

1. The nature and degree of the worker's control over the work; and
2. The worker's opportunity for profit or loss.