Urgent ... Easy .. Question re: Exempt and Minimum Wage
borntexan
13 Posts
Hello All,
I have a question that has come to me from a fried of mine who is Restaurant Assitant Manager in TX. I am wondering if he is being paid legally. Currently he has an exempt status at a rate of $25000 per year. He is required to work 50+ hours per week. (Required to clock in and out) Currently he is working 80+. Is he required to receive at least minimum wage?
For example:
40 hours x $5.15 = $206.00
40 OT hours x $7.73 = $309.20
Total = $515.20 which is more than his salary of $480.77
Is this okay?
I also question his exempt status. He has been told explicitly he does NOT have the authority to hire/fire or write anyone up. He performs essentially the same duties as all the other workers, except he has access to the safe, and large sums of money.
Can ya'll please give me your opinions?
Thanks,
Leslie
I have a question that has come to me from a fried of mine who is Restaurant Assitant Manager in TX. I am wondering if he is being paid legally. Currently he has an exempt status at a rate of $25000 per year. He is required to work 50+ hours per week. (Required to clock in and out) Currently he is working 80+. Is he required to receive at least minimum wage?
For example:
40 hours x $5.15 = $206.00
40 OT hours x $7.73 = $309.20
Total = $515.20 which is more than his salary of $480.77
Is this okay?
I also question his exempt status. He has been told explicitly he does NOT have the authority to hire/fire or write anyone up. He performs essentially the same duties as all the other workers, except he has access to the safe, and large sums of money.
Can ya'll please give me your opinions?
Thanks,
Leslie
Comments
Borntexan, it does sound suspect. Our store's bookkeepers have access to the safe and large amounts of money, but do not make any independent decisions - they are non-exempt. Our store assistant manager's are often able to hire, usually not fire, and discipline. However, with so many changes in our company that limit decision making for store management, their status is also coming into question. But your assistants definitely do not sound exempt to me.
Elizabeth
PORK
EEOC wanted our side of the story, I talked, and provided them with the written statements I had gathered for my investigation. I was shocked to learn later this afternoon that they closed the case file to the cabinet.
Others have been unrelenting and could not get beyond their on issues with the case and became personal instead of professional. This is Mississippi, and it is no longer a bunch of Red Neck Farmers running the show. Our EEOC offices are pretty much run by government employees that have gotten into the system of government and they grow from there. It does not matter if they have slanted views themselves. They are normally for the minority regardless of the circumstance. Now, I am balanced enough to know right from wrong, and old enough to handle it. When my ees are done wrong, I make sure the wrong is righted. One of my Black Managers told a very large white female that she was just to large to work for us {she was physically to big for the task of "pulling pigs", a birthing process}. She did not hear "to large", she heard "TO FAT" AND THAT IS WHAT THE EEOC HIT US WITH AS A DISCRIMINATION OF A BLACK MANAGER TO A WHITE EE! We comprimized with the investigator and gave her back wages for four months and offered to reconsider an application. She has never re-applied, which tells me she did not want to work she just wanted some money and EEOC fell right in line to help her out. On two other cases I have held my grounds in the face of the EEOC orders to crumble and they have written an authorization to sue, but we have never been suied. I'm still waiting on the Military one to come forward, we put him back to work as a re-hired ee. No back benefits, to which he would have been entitled had he not arranged for a "voluntary quit". He failed to abide by the law in his seperation with us upon being called to active duty, he was therefore terminated. He lied to the EEOC office and they came after us, but we agreed to only re-hire. The legal issues are still out there and we are counting the days to a statue of limitations date and the issue dies.
Believe me you do not want to get caught in a cross the court battle with EEOC when they smell the BBQ they come a running; normally, you can not win.
In this case, I see the company screwing the ee by giving him a title but making him do labor work, just so they do not pay O/T. That is wrong and the EEOC will do the dirt work that any ATTORNEY DAWG can do to sniff out the right! The EE does not need an attorney; there are a lot of "event chasers out there making a living at legal work just to get half of the settlement". Well look, what I did for you and you got 50% of something you would never have gotten had I not been here to do the legal work for you.
EVERYONE OUT THERE SAY, OINK, OINK!!!
PORK
mwild, I know California is different, but the DOL hears wage and hour claims here, not the EEOC.
Elizabeth
SUUUUUUUEEEEYYYYYY! (or however you how you spell it!)
For the original questioner; yes, this is suspect. I doubt seriously that by any stretch of the rules your friend could be truly exempt. His best bet is to have a good journal of his hours. That will be his best proof of hours worked from which his overtime calculation will be derived when the Feds do that.