In a Press Release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20110991.htm , the United States Labor Department announced that two restaurants in Jacksonville, Florida have been ordered to pay 30 employees $934,425 in back wages and liquidated damages under the terms of consent judgments.  In this regard, the Labor Department said that the agreements resolve a U. S. Department of Labor lawsuit based on an investigation by its Wage and Hour Division that alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage, overtime pay and record-keeping provisions. 

As described by the Labor Department, investigators found that kitchen employees were improperly classified as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay provisions and consequently paid salaries that did not include compensation for hours worked over 40 in a week.  In addition, the Department said that every week, tipped employees would receive their tips plus a paycheck that together equaled the minimum wage; however, management required the employees to sign and return paychecks, and would then cash the checks and put the money back into the restaurant.  Through this process, while it appeared that the owners were paying wages, the employees actually were allowed to keep only their tips.  Finally, the Department maintained that the employers did not maintain accurate records of the hours worked by the employees. 

The FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked, as well as one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 per week.  If certain conditions are met, the FLSA permits the employer to take a tip credit toward its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees.  The employer must pay tipped employees a cash wage of $2.13 per hour or the state mandated cash wage, whichever is higher; all tips must be retained by the employee except for contributions to a valid tip pooling arrangement; employees must be informed of the tip credit provision; and the amount of the tips plus cash wages must equal the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 per hour.  Additionally, the law requires that accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and other conditions of employment be maintained.  More information in this regard is made available by the Labor Department at http://www.dol.gov/whd .  

Whether restaurant wage discrimination occurs in Houston, Conroe, Dallas or elsewhere, employees subjected to unlawful wage payments and improper tip pooling may contact the United States Department of Labor and an attorney to determine if a wage and hour lawsuit is appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential restaurant wage discrimination claim.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has sued the Texas Department of Rural Affairs (TDRA) charging that the state agency engaged in unlawful sex discrimination when it paid a female program specialist less than her male colleagues for doing essentially the same work.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-20-11d.cfm , the EEOC said it filed the sex discrimination lawsuit in the Austin Division for the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, claiming the TDRA violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963.  In this regard, EEOC attorneys allege in the lawsuit that the employee was paid approximately $25,000 less than her male counterparts in the TDRA’s former Disaster Recovery Division.  According to the EEOC, the TDRA created a new, temporary division in 2008, the Disaster Recovery Division, to disburse $3.1 billion of federal money in Texas after Hurricanes Dolly and Ike.  The female claimant learned that males hired as program specialists were paid much more than the female program specialists.  On February 28, 2011, the Disaster Recovery Division was eliminated, and, as a result of the elimination, the claimant and all female program specialists in the DRD were terminated from employment with the TDRA but several male program specialists were kept. 

Whether discriminatory, unequal pay in employment occurs in Austin, Cuero, Houston or elsewhere, employees subjected to pay discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine whether a pay discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential claim.

A company that produces pork sausage has agreed to pay $60,000.00 and furnish other relief to settle a wage discrimination and racial harassment lawsuit filed by attorneys with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-11-11.cfm .  In the lawsuit, EEOC attorneys charged that the sausage company violated federal law by paying an African-American maintenance worker less than white counterparts and subjecting him to a hostile work environment.  In addition, the EEOC asserted that the company gave raises and paid higher salaries to all maintenance department employees except the department’s lone African-American employee.  Further, EEOC attorneys alleged in the case that the sausage company allowed a supervisor to regularly use racially offensive language toward the employee because of racial animus. 

Racial discrimination in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the EEOC is a federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including racially hostile work environments.  EEOC attorneys filed the employment discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to settle the matter through the EEOC’s conciliation process.  Additional information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces may be found at www.eeoc.gov . 

An EEOC attorney familar with the case remarked, in part, as follows:  “Sadly, race discrimination continues to exist in the workplace where workers are paid less and forced to endure a racially hostile work environment.”   

Whether employment-related race discrimination occurs in Conroe, Beaumont or Houston, workers subjected to a racially hostile work environment and unequal pay may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if the facts and circumstances of the potential race discrimination case merit filing of a workplace discrimination lawsuit.

The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced in an August 22, 2011 News Release that a Los Angeles based Japanese restaurant group has agreed to pay back wages of $144,721 to 66 employees following an investigation by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division that disclosed systemic violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime, minimum wage and record-keeping provisions.  In its News Release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20111174.htm , the DOL stated investigators conducted interviews and pay roll record reviews, finding that dishwashers, prep cooks and cooks worked an average of 45 to 50 hours per week and were paid “straight time” wages for all hours, rather than time and one-half their regular rates for all overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In this regard, the FLSA requires that covered employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular hourly rate for hours worked beyond 40 per week.  Additionally, the law requires employers to maintain accurate time and payroll records, and prohibits retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under the law. 

For more information about the FLSA, information is available at http://www.dol.gov/whd/ .

The U.S. Labor Department has settled a lawsuit in which two Texas companies were accused of not paying $1 million in overtime to 154 workers. Those workers inspected temporary housing trailers occupied by people who lost their homes during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Federal labor officials announced Wednesday that Irving, Texas-based Fluor Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay the overtime as part of a consent judgment approved in a Houston federal court. The Labor Department also obtained a default judgment against Houston-based Universal Project Management Inc., a subcontractor used by Fluor. According to court documents, Fluor admitted no wrongdoing in the case, saying it wasn’t the workers’ employer.

Universal Project Management failed to answer the claims against it in court. An attorney for Universal was not listed in court records and no public listing for the company could be found.  Associated Press February 10, 2010.

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) announced in a January 29, 2010 News Release posted at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/whd20100073.htm that it has recovered more than $1 million in overtime back wages for 798 former and current processing workers at a poultry processor’s Dallas facility.  According to the DOL News Release, the poultry processing company also agreed to pay for time spent by employees “donning and doffing,” or putting on and taking off work-related gear in all processing plants nationwide.  As stated in the News Release, the agreement marks another major step in the DOL’s poultry initiative, which is aimed at ensuring that the poultry processing industry pays its workers all wages to which they are entitled.  In this regard, the agreement settles allegations that Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation failed to properly pay overtime back wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The FLSA’s overtime violations occurred allegedly in part because the company failed to pay its employees for all hours worked, including time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing.  Additionally, required recordkeeping was allegedly not maintained.  The DOL’s legal action followed an investigation by the Wage and Hour Division.

For more information about the FLSA, one may call the Wage and Hour Division’s Dallas District Office at 817-861-2150 or the DOL’s toll-free helpline at 866-487-9243.  Information is also made available on the internet at http://www.wagehour.dol.gov . 

Whether overtime wage payment violations occur in Dallas, Corpus Christi, Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the DOL or an attorney to determine if a wage compensation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential FLSA violation claim.

The Associated Press reported on October 5, 2009 that a former pharmacist at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who claimed she was fired after asking to be paid the same as her male colleagues is entitled to $2 million in damages awarded by a jury, according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  See, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113515362 .  As stated in the article, Cynthia Haddad was fired in 2004 after working more than 10 years for the company, seven of them at a store in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.  While the company claimed that Haddad was fired because she left the pharmacy unattended and allowed a technician to use her computer security code to issue prescriptions during her absence, Haddad alleged in her discrimination lawsuit that she was fired because she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts, including a bonus given to pharmacy managers.  It states in the article that the company paid the bonus, and then fired Haddad two weeks later. 

As described in the article, a jury found in 2007 that the company discriminated against Haddad, and awarded her $1 million in compensatory damages and another $1 million in punitive damages, but a judge later revoked the $1 million in punitive damages, finding there was an insufficient basis for the jury’s decision.  However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated the punitive damages and upheld the total verdict, ruling that the jury had enough evidence to find that the company’s stated motive for the firing was a pretext and that the company acted with “discriminatory animus.”

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) filed a federal lawsuit against a flooring company claiming that the North Carolina based business discriminated against blacks and Hispanics by paying them less than their white counterparts.  According to the EEOC Press Release found at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-15-09.html , the company allegedly discriminated against a black employee and other black and Hispanic employees when it paid them lower wages than white coworkers who performed the same jobs.  As stated in the Press Release, the discriminatory wage payments have occurred since at least March 2006.  Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including race related pay or wage discrimination.  An EEOC trial attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “Under Title VII it is unlawful for an employer to determine employees’ pay based on their race, national origin or other protected class status; therefore, black and Hispanic employees doing the same or similar work should not be paid less than whites.”  Further information about the EEOC is available in the federal agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a September 3, 2009 Press Release that a building material company has agreed to settle an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys for $49,500.00 and other relief on behalf of an African American employee who was allegedly subjected to racial discrimination.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-3-09d.html .  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, EEOC attorneys charged that the employee was assigned to less desirable and lower-paying jobs because of his race and that a supervisor responsible for determining job assignments referred to him using racial slurs.  According to the Press Release, the alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said “An employee’s race should not impact his paycheck.”  The EEOC attorney added “In the current economy, the consequences of discriminatory pay decisions can be especially devastating.”  Another EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said “We still see egregious instances of racial bias at job sites across the country, as evidenced by this case and many others.”  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial bias.  Further information about the EEOC is avaialable in the agency’s website.

Whether workplace racial bias occurs in Baytown, Houston, Port Arthur or elsewhere, victims of race based employment discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a racial bias lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential racial discrimination case.

The U. S. Department of Labor announced in a recent News Release that a healthcare system company and its affiliated hospitals have agreed to pay 700 employees more than $2.7 million in overtime back wages to resolve an overtime lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought by the Department of Labor and alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  According to the News Release, the FLSA requires that employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage, and time and one-half their regular rates of pay for hours worked beyond 40 per week.  Further, the Department of Labor stated that the law also requires that employers maintain accurate records of employees’ wages, hours and conditions of employment.  Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis was quoted in the News Release as saying: “We are pleased that the department has succeeded in securing such a substantial amount of back wages for these workers who were not properly paid for overtime they had worked.”   For further information concerning this Department of Labor News Release see http://www.dol.gov/opa/press/esa/esa20090438.htm .

Workers with employment related wage overtime complaints may contact the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division toll free at 866-487-9243 and consult an attorney to determine if an unpaid overtime lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate.