The FMLA Rights of Family Members

Continuing from last week's Employment Law Update, employees have expanded Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights in relation to the care of a family member who is a veteran and is undergoing medical treatment or therapy for injury/illness that occurred within the five years preceding treatment. The Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which became effective October 28, 2009, expanded the military leave provisions of the FMLA that first became law in January 2008. With respect to the so-called "caregiver leave," the law now grants eligible employees up to 26 weeks of FMLA leave to care for a family member, (i.e., spouse, son/daughter, parent, or "next of kin") who is a veteran undergoing medical treatment or therapy for injury/illness that occurred within the five years preceding treatment.

This 26 workweeks of caregiver leave applies to a "single 12-month period." This period starts when the employee begins the leave, and ends 12 months later, regardless of the 12-month period the employer applies for purposes of other FMLA leaves. During this unique "single 12-month period," the employee is limited to a combined total of 26 workweeks of leave for any FMLA-qualifying reason. In other words, the military caregiver leave is not additive to the usual 12 weeks of FMLA leave entitlement. But tracking this can get tricky because the military caregiver leave will usually be on a different 12-month tracking period.

The DOL's Fact Sheet #28A provides a summary of both the FMLA's "caregiver leave" as well as the so-called "exigency leave." (http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28a.pdf)

For most HR professionals, the nuances of Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) and the details of the new FMLA military caregiver leave are unfamiliar. These simply are not ordinary employment law issues that arise frequently. But, an employer must comply fully or face the prospect of having to defend against the unseemly claims that it is not only non-compliant with an employment law, but unpatriotic as well.

Court Decides Flat Rate Payment System Qualifies for Overtime Exemption

Employees who worked for a NutriSystem call center sued the company, alleging they were entitled to overtime. The call center used two different methods of payment — one based on an hourly rate and the other based on a flat rate system. Employees who were paid based on the flat rate system did not receive overtime.

One exception to the overtime requirement under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), is the retail commission exception. (http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs20.htm)

In order to qualify for the retail commission exception:

  • Employees must be employed at a retail or service establishment
  • The regular rate of pay must be at least one and a half times the minimum wage, or more than $10.88 an hour (this must be based on a representative period of not less than one month)
  • Employees must receive more than half of their pay from commissions

In this case, there was not any dispute about whether the NutriSystem call center qualified as a retail establishment. (http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs6.htm) Instead, the sole issue was whether the flat rate system qualified as a commission. NutriSystem had five meal types, each with two different prices, which varied depending on whether the customer signed up for automatic future shipments. The flat rate did not depend on the price of the sale, but instead varied based on whether it was the result of an inbound or outbound call, and whether the sale was during daytime hours or during evening/weekend hours. The court noted the flat rate system created an incentive for employees to make outbound calls and to work the less desirable evenings and weekends, since those sales received a higher flat rate. (http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/news/coladvice/ask/sa991104.htm)

As the court pointed out, the FLSA does not define the term "commission." The employees argued that the flat rate paid was not a commission because it did not vary based on the cost to the consumer — in other words, it was not a percentage of the fee or sales price. The DOL filed a brief in support of the employees and relied on its prior opinion letters that concluded a flat rate payment did not qualify as a commission. The court decided that although a commission is most typically a percentage of the price to the customer, being paid a percentage was not a strict requirement for a commission payment plan. In part, the court was persuaded because the payment to the employee was proportionally related to the sales made by employee, even though it was not a percentage of price.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.