Receiving a Form 1099 or being labeled an independent contractor does not necessarily determine your employment status. If the reality of your working relationship shows that you depend on a company for work—rather than operating an independent business of your own—you may qualify as an employee entitled to wage-and-hour protections.

Employee misclassification can deprive workers of overtime pay, minimum wages, payroll-tax contributions, and other workplace protections.

Your Job Status Depends on the Work, Not the Label

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) protects covered employees, but not workers who are genuinely independent contractors.

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) explains in Fact Sheet #13: Employment Relationship Under the FLSA that no single label or paperwork choice controls. The real working relationship matters.

NOTE: Signing an independent-contractor agreement or receiving Form 1099-NEC does not automatically make a worker an independent contractor under the FLSA. Likewise, a worker who is an employee under the FLSA cannot waive federal minimum-wage or overtime rights.

Signs of Employee Misclassification

No single fact automatically decides status. Consider the full economic reality of the relationship.

Warning signs can include:

• The company sets your schedule, workload, assignments, or work location.
• A supervisor directs how you perform the work, inspects it, disciplines you, or can remove you from the job.
• The company sets your hourly rate or price and you cannot meaningfully negotiate it.
• You earn more mainly by working more hours – not through business decisions that create a genuine opportunity for profit or risk of loss.
• The company supplies the facilities, materials, heavy equipment, or other significant investment needed for the work.
• You work continuously or indefinitely for the company rather than marketing services to multiple customers as an independent business.
• Your work is part of the company’s production process or central service.
• You are paid by the hour, tracked on company time records, and do not submit bids or invoices as a separate business.

Current DOL Guidance and the Proposed Independent-Contractor Rule

The DOL’s 2024 independent-contractor rule applies a totality-of-the-circumstances “economic realities” test to determine whether, under the FLSA, a worker is economically dependent on a potential employer for work or is instead in business for themself.

The rule identifies six factors:

1. Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill;
2. Investments by the worker and the employer;
3. Permanence of the work relationship;
4. Nature and degree of control;
5. Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and
6. Skill and initiative.

No single factor or combination of factors automatically determines a worker’s status, and additional factors may be considered if they bear on whether the worker is in business for themself or economically dependent on the potential employer for work.

The DOL explains the six factors in greater detail in Fact Sheet No. 13: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the FLSA.

NOTE: The 2024 rule remains in effect for purposes of private litigation, although its legality is the subject of ongoing litigation. In May 2025, the DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-1, instructing DOL’s Wage and Hour Division field staff not to apply the 2024 rule’s analysis when determining employee or independent-contractor status in FLSA investigations. Instead, WHD currently applies the analysis contained in the July 2008 version of Fact Sheet No. 13, as further informed by Opinion Letter FLSA2025-2, in its enforcement matters. The bulletin does not change the rights of employees or the responsibilities of employers under the FLSA.

In February 2026, the DOL published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would rescind the 2024 rule and replace it with a different analysis for determining employee or independent-contractor status under the FLSA, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. As of August 17, 2026, the proposed rule has not been finalized.

Rights Misclassified Workers May Be Denied

Overtime Pay

Unless an exemption applies, covered employees generally must receive at least one and one-half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Overtime ordinarily cannot be waived by agreement. Read the DOL’s Fact Sheet #23: Overtime Pay Requirements.

Minimum Wage and Payment for All Compensable Time

Covered employees must receive at least the applicable minimum wage for all compensable hours. Depending on the facts, required pre-shift or post-shift activities, job meetings, training, or other time the employer permits or requires may count as hours worked. See the DOL’s FLSA hours-worked guidance.

Accurate time and pay records

Covered employers must keep accurate records for nonexempt employees, including daily and weekly hours, pay rates, overtime earnings, deductions, total wages, pay dates, and pay periods. Review Fact Sheet #21: FLSA Recordkeeping Requirements.

Protection from retaliation

The FLSA prohibits discharging or otherwise discriminating against a worker because the worker filed a complaint or participated in a proceeding under the law. Learn more from the DOL’s FLSA anti-retaliation guidance.

FLSA Coverage Caution: Whether the FLSA applies, whether a worker is an employee, whether an exemption applies, and how damages are calculated are fact-specific questions. State and local wage laws may provide additional or greater protections.

• Preserve your records. Save paychecks, 1099 forms, contracts, schedules, texts, emails, time sheets, app records, job instructions, and photographs of workplace notices or equipment.
• Track your time. Write down each day’s start time, end time, meal periods, job locations, and unpaid work.
• Document control and business reality. Note who sets your schedule and rate, assigns work, supervises you, supplies major tools or materials, and decides whether you can hire helpers or work for others.
• Do not delay. Wage claims are subject to time limits that vary by claim and jurisdiction.
• Seek legal guidance. An employment attorney can evaluate which federal, state, and local standards apply to your work and whether time limits may affect your claims.

Contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. 

Our firm is available to evaluate potential claims involving employee misclassification, unpaid wages, and unpaid overtime. A confidential consultation can help you understand which laws may apply to your work and whether you may have a legal claim. For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

In an August 14, 2026 press release, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced charges against Andrew Spaventa (“Spaventa”) and three entities he owned and controlled for alleged fraud and other violations involving unregistered private-fund securities offerings. The entities are The Spaventa Group LLC, TSG Capital Advisors LLC, and TSG Alpha Partners LLC.

According to the SEC, the funds purportedly offered retail investors an opportunity to invest in shares of private companies before an initial public offering while charging hidden fees. Between approximately December 2020 and June 2025, Spaventa and the three entities allegedly raised more than $74 million from more than 800 mostly retail investors across the United States for eleven private funds.

How Did the Alleged Scheme Operate?

The SEC alleges that Spaventa used entities he owned to purchase pre-IPO shares, either directly or through another investment fund, and then sold the shares to his funds in principal transactions at marked-up prices. The alleged markups were passed on to investors as hidden fees charged on the sale of membership interests in the funds.

As alleged, more than 100 “sales agents” cold-called and pitched the funds to thousands of prospective investors, many of them retirees, using high-pressure sales tactics. The defendants allegedly told investors that they would pay no upfront fees or fees of no more than 12.5%, although the prices investors paid were, on average, approximately 46% higher than the prices Spaventa paid for the investments.

The SEC alleges that the defendants collected approximately $23 million in upfront fees. According to the agency, more than $12 million was paid to sales agents as commissions and approximately $4 million went to Spaventa personally.

What Does the SEC Seek?

The SEC’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges the defendants with violating antifraud, securities-registration, and broker-dealer-registration provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The SEC also charges Spaventa with control-person liability and aiding and abetting violations.

The agency seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties from all defendants, as well as conduct-based injunctions against Spaventa.

Sources

SEC Press Release No. 2026-75 (August 14, 2026)

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

If you are a server, bartender, barista, bellhop, busser, or another tipped employee, your employer may be violating federal law if managers share in the tip pool, tips disappear, you are forced to share tips with ineligible workers, or your wages still fall below minimum wage.

Tip pooling laws for tipped employees can require repayment of diverted tips and, in some cases, additional minimum-wage or overtime compensation. Whether you may have a claim depends on who received the money, how you were paid, what notice you received, and the law where you worked.

Your Tip Pool May Be Illegal If:

• The employer, an owner, or a manager or supervisor keeps any portion of employees’ tips.
• The employer takes a tip credit, but requires tipped workers to share tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips, such as cooks or dishwashers.
• The employer does not give the required tip-credit information before using employees’ tips to meet minimum wage.
• Employees’ direct wages plus tips do not reach the applicable minimum wage, and the employer fails to make up the shortfall.
• The employer collects tips but does not fully and timely distribute them, or cannot explain where the money went.

What Is Tip Pooling?

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a tipped employee is someone engaged in an occupation in which the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 per month in tips. Only tips actually received by the employee count toward that threshold or toward a federal tip credit.

A tip pool requires or permits employees to contribute some tips for distribution among eligible workers. A server may share with a busser or service bartender, for example. Federal law does not set a fixed maximum percentage for a valid mandatory pool, but the employer must tell affected employees the required contribution amount and comply with all other federal and applicable state rules.

Who Can Participate in a Mandatory Tip Pool?

Federal law recognizes two types of mandatory tip pools. Which rule applies depends on whether the employer uses a tip credit—counting tips toward its minimum-wage obligation—or pays the full minimum wage in cash.

Traditional Tip Pool: Regularly Tipped Employees Only

When an employer takes a tip credit, the pool may include only employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) lists servers, bellhops, customer-serving counter personnel, bussers, and service bartenders as examples. Cooks, dishwashers, chefs, janitors, employers, owners, managers, and supervisors may not receive distributions from this pool.

Broader Tip Pool: Back-of-House Employees May Participate

When an employer pays the full applicable minimum wage in cash and takes no tip credit, the pool may also include employees who do not customarily receive tips, such as cooks and dishwashers. Employers, owners, managers, and supervisors remain excluded. State or local law may be more protective.

Can Managers, Supervisors, or Owners Receive Pooled Tips?

Generally, no. The FLSA prohibits employers from keeping employees’ tips or allowing managers or supervisors to keep any portion of them, whether or not a tip credit is taken. The rule looks to duties, not merely a job title or whether the person receives a salary. DOL Fact Sheet No. 15B explains that the relevant manager test considers whether the person principally manages the business or a recognized department, regularly directs at least two full-time employees or their equivalent, and has meaningful hiring or firing authority or influence.

A qualifying manager may keep a tip received directly from a customer for service the manager directly and solely performed. But a manager cannot take from a tip pool or common jar containing other employees’ tips, even while working a bartender or server shift. A manager may be required to contribute the manager’s own direct tips to a pool for non-managerial employees, but cannot receive a pool distribution.

DOL example: A café manager who supervises employees while helping serve customers may not take from a common tip jar because the tips cannot be attributed solely to the manager’s service. By contrast, a manager who personally delivers a pizza and receives a tip directly for that delivery may keep that particular tip.

Five Common Tip and Wage Problems

The following examples translate the DOL’s Fact Sheet No. 15 into common workplace situations. They use the federal $7.25 minimum wage and $2.13 minimum direct cash wage. A higher state or local rate may apply.

1. Employer Must Make Up a Tip Shortfall

A server is paid $2.13 per hour and earns only $3.50 per hour in tips during a slow shift. The total is $5.63, below the $7.25 federal minimum wage. The employer must add $1.62 per hour. It cannot tell the server to absorb the loss because other shifts were busier.

2. Employer Must Give Tip-Credit Notice

Before claiming a tip credit, an employer must tell the employee the cash wage, the amount of the tip credit, that the credit cannot exceed tips actually received, that the employee keeps tips except for a valid pool, and that the credit does not apply until this information is provided. Without the required notice, the employer cannot take the tip credit and generally owes the full minimum wage in cash while allowing the employee to keep tips.

3. Incorrect Tip Pool Participants Can Invalidate a Tip-Credit Pool

A restaurant pays servers less than the full minimum wage in cash and requires them to share tips with cooks or dishwashers. Because those workers do not customarily and regularly receive tips, the pool is generally invalid under federal tip-credit rules. The tipped employees may be owed the full minimum wage and reimbursement of improperly used tips.

4. A Mandatory Service Charge Is Not a Tip

A compulsory 20% service charge is not a tip under federal law, because the customer is required to pay it and does not control the amount. It becomes part of the establishment’s gross receipts. If the employer distributes some or all of it to employees, the distribution is wages rather than tips; it may satisfy minimum-wage obligations and generally must be included in the regular rate for overtime. A voluntary additional amount may still qualify as a tip.

5. Overtime Uses the Full Minimum Wage

An employer may not calculate a tipped employee’s overtime pay using only the $2.13 direct cash wage. Under the DOL’s federal-minimum-wage example, the employer first multiplies $7.25 by 1.5, resulting in an overtime rate of $10.87. The employer may then apply its usual tip credit of no more than $5.12, leaving at least $5.75 that the employer must pay directly for each overtime hour. In other words, the employee receives at least $5.75 directly from the employer, plus at least $5.12 in tips, for total compensation of $10.87 per overtime hour.

The required overtime pay may be higher if the employee has a higher regular rate or a more protective state or local law applies.

DOL Tip-Pooling Enforcement Examples

Published DOL Wage and Hour Division investigations show that an unlawful tip pool can create liability beyond the amount diverted. If the pool violates the conditions for a federal tip credit, affected employees may also be owed the difference between the direct cash wage and the full minimum wage.

Texas Coffee Bar: Manager Included in the Tip Pool

In April 2026, the DOL reported recovering $85,197 in back wages for 36 workers at Nate’s Coffee & Cocktails near Austin. Investigators found that the general manager participated in the employee tip pool. The unlawful pool invalidated the employer’s tip credit, so the employer owed affected workers the full minimum wage.

Florida Restaurant: Chefs, Managers, Owners, and Missing Tips

In 2023, the DOL reported that Ginza Japanese Restaurant in Fort Myers required servers to share tips with sushi chefs, managers, and owners based on sales. Investigators also found that the employer could not account for approximately $22,000 in withheld tips. The DOL recovered $262,322 in back wages and liquidated damages for 75 workers.

NOTE: As of 01/20/2025, information in some DOL Wage and Hour news releases may be out of date or not reflect current DOL policies.

What Notice Is Required Before an Employer Takes a Tip Credit?

The DOL says the employer must provide five categories of information before using the federal tip credit:

• The direct cash wage paid to the tipped employee, at least $2.13 per hour under federal law;
• The additional amount claimed as a tip credit, no more than $5.12 under the current federal rates;
• That the credit cannot exceed the tips the employee actually receives;
• That the employee must retain all tips except those contributed to a valid tip pool; and
• That no tip credit applies until the employee has been informed of these rules.

The notice may be oral or written under federal law, but a written policy, onboarding form, handbook, or payroll record can be important evidence of what the employee was actually told.

When Must an Employer Distribute Collected Tips?

An employer that collects tips to operate a mandatory pool generally must fully distribute them within the pay period. If the exact amounts cannot be determined by the regular payday, the employer must distribute them as soon as practicable afterward. The employer may take a tip credit only for tips the employee ultimately receives, not amounts collected and retained or diverted elsewhere.

Warning Signs of an Unlawful Tip Pool

• Managers, supervisors, owners, or the business receive part of the tip pool.
• Cooks, dishwashers, or other non-tipped workers share tips, while the employer pays tipped workers less than the full applicable minimum wage in cash.
• The tip-out formula changes without explanation, or employees cannot see how contributions and distributions are calculated.
• Card tips, cash tips, or automatic charges are combined without explaining which amounts are tips and which are service charges.
• Deductions for walkouts, breakage, uniforms, shortages, or processing fees create a wage shortfall.
• The paycheck does not identify enough hours or wages to verify minimum wage and overtime.
• Workers are threatened, scheduled for fewer hours, disciplined, or fired after questioning tip practices.

What Records Should Tipped Employees Keep?

Employees concerned about missing or improperly pooled tips should preserve records before access disappears. Useful documents include:

• Pay stubs, wage statements, W-2s, and direct-deposit records;
• Timecards, schedules, clock-in records, and notes of work performed before opening or after closing;
• Daily tip reports, checkout slips, POS screenshots, cash-out records, and card-tip summaries;
• Tip-pool policies, onboarding documents, handbooks, notices, and acknowledgments;
• Messages with managers or coworkers about tip-outs, deductions, missing money, job duties, or complaints; and
• A dated log showing hours, direct wages, tips received, amounts contributed, recipients, and any retaliation.

Keep copies lawfully and avoid taking customer data, trade secrets, or records you are not authorized to possess. Federal law generally prohibits retaliation for asserting FLSA rights or participating in an investigation.

The DOL also requires employers to maintain wage-and-hour records. For tipped employees, the current DOL tips guidance points to 29 C.F.R. § 516.28, including records concerning employees receiving tips and reported tip amounts. An employer’s recordkeeping duty does not eliminate the value of an employee’s own contemporaneous records.

State and Local Tip Laws May Provide Greater Protection

States and cities may require a higher minimum wage, prohibit tip credits, restrict tip pools, ban processing-fee deductions, or impose different notice and payment rules. The law governing the location where the employee works must be checked before reaching a conclusion.

FAQs About Tip Pooling Laws 

Can my employer keep part of my tips?

Generally, no. An employer may administer a lawful tip pool, but may not keep employees’ tips for the business or allow managers or supervisors to keep pooled tips.

Can a cook or dishwasher receive money from a tip pool?

Under federal law, yes—but only through a nontraditional tip pool in which the employer pays all participating employees at least the full federal minimum wage directly and takes no tip credit. If the employer takes a tip credit for any affected tipped employee, cooks, dishwashers, and other employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips may not participate in that tip pool. State or local law may provide greater protections.

Is an automatic gratuity a tip?

Usually not under federal law. If the establishment requires the payment and fixes the amount, it is a service charge even if the receipt calls it a gratuity. A voluntary additional amount may be a tip. The distinction affects ownership, wage credits, payroll treatment, and overtime calculations.

What if my tips plus wages do not reach minimum wage?

The employer must make up the difference for the workweek under federal law. A higher state or local minimum wage may apply.

Can my employer punish me for asking about missing tips?

The FLSA prohibits retaliation against employees for protected complaints or participation in enforcement. Document what happened and seek advice promptly because deadlines can apply.

What to Do If You Suspect Tip-Pooling or Other Wage Violations

If you believe your employer kept tips, allowed a manager or supervisor to share in a pool, used an invalid tip credit, or failed to pay minimum wage or overtime, preserve your records and seek advice promptly.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
(215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

SEC and CFTC File Parallel Civil Actions

The SEC and CFTC charge Goliath Ventures, Inc. (“Goliath”) and its founder and CEO, Christopher A. Delgado (“Delgado”), in separate civil enforcement actions filed on August 11, 2026, concerning an alleged crypto asset Ponzi scheme.

The SEC litigation release alleges that Goliath and Delgado raised at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors between January 2023 and January 2026 through an unregistered securities offering involving purported crypto asset liquidity pools. According to the SEC, no investor funds or crypto assets were placed into those liquidity pools, Delgado misappropriated at least $51 million for personal use, and investor funds were used to pay earlier investors.

The CFTC press release separately alleges that approximately 1,600 customers contributed at least $397 million for purported crypto asset trading, including bitcoin and ether. The CFTC alleges that customer funds were misappropriated, fictitious profits were paid to existing customers, principal or profits were falsely guaranteed, and false account statements reflected nonexistent gains.

What Relief Do the Agencies Seek?

The SEC charges Goliath and Delgado with violations of federal securities laws. Delgado consented to a proposed bifurcated judgment, subject to court approval, while monetary relief would be determined later. The SEC seeks injunctions and disgorgement with prejudgment interest against Goliath.

The CFTC seeks restitution, disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. The CFTC also reported that Delgado pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges in June 2026 in a parallel criminal case.

Sources: CFTC Release No. 9280-26 (August 11, 2026); SEC Litigation Release No. 26608 (August 11, 2026)

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

A Novelis Corporation (“Novelis”) employee has alleged that hourly production/manufacturing workers were not paid for required pre-shift work, resulting in unpaid overtime.

The lawsuit, Evans v. Novelis Corporation, 1:26-cv-04498-MHC (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 10, 2026), seeks to proceed as an opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for certain current and former hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employees at Novelis locations outside Ohio.

What does the lawsuit allege?

The complaint was filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia and alleges that Novelis generally paid covered employees for scheduled shift times, but did not pay them for required pre-shift work, including:

• changing into required uniforms and personal protective equipment (“PPE”);
• walking to assigned work areas; and
• participating in mandatory shift-change or shift-turnover procedures.

Allegedly, this unpaid time resulted in overtime violations during weeks when employees worked more than 40 hours. It also alleges that Novelis failed to keep complete and accurate time records and acted willfully.

Who may be covered?

The complaint defines the proposed collective as all current and former hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employees at Novelis locations outside Ohio who were paid for 40 or more hours in any workweek beginning three years before the complaint was filed on August 10, 2026.

Eligible workers do not join automatically. An FLSA collective member generally must file written consent with the court to opt in.

What relief is requested?

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a class action?

The complaint seeks an FLSA collective action, not a Rule 23 class action. Eligible workers generally must affirmatively opt in.

Are Novelis employees in Ohio included?

Not under the collective definition proposed in the complaint, which excludes Novelis locations in Ohio.

Did You Perform Unpaid Pre-Shift Work at Novelis?

If you worked as an hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employee at a Novelis location outside Ohio, worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, and performed required pre-shift activities without pay, you may have legal claims.

For more information, contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], for a free, no-obligation legal evaluation.

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Investigation Finds Unpaid Training, Off-the-Clock Work, and Overtime Violations

The U.S. Department of Labor announced that it recovered $113,199 in back wages after an investigation found that Premier Health Consultants LLC, which operates as St. Joseph’s/Candler Urgent Care, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the Department’s Wage and Hour Division, the employer failed to pay workers properly for time spent attending required orientation, meetings, and training. Investigators found that employees received straight-time pay instead of the required overtime rate for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.

The Department also found that certain employees were required to perform work off the clock, resulting in additional unpaid overtime.

Department of Labor Finds Employee Retaliation

The Wage and Hour Division further determined that the employer suspended a worker who questioned its pay practices. The FLSA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who raise concerns about unpaid wages or exercise their rights under federal wage-and-hour law.

Mandatory Training and Meetings May Be Compensable Work

Employers generally must compensate nonexempt employees for required, job-related orientation, meetings, and training. When that time causes an employee’s total hours to exceed 40 in a workweek, the employee may also be entitled to overtime compensation.

Employees may have potential wage claims if they were required to:

• Attend unpaid orientation or training;
• Participate in required meetings before or after a scheduled shift;
• Complete job-related tasks off the clock;
• Work more than 40 hours without receiving proper overtime pay; or
• Endure discipline or retaliation after questioning an employer’s pay practices.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division 

Concerned About Your Employer’s Pay Practices?

Employees concerned about unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, unpaid training or meetings, improper deductions, misclassification, withheld compensation, or retaliation for raising pay-related concerns may have legal rights.

Available wage-and-hour protections depend on factors, such as the employee’s location, job duties, compensation structure, and individual circumstances. Employees who believe they have not received all compensation owed should preserve relevant pay statements, schedules, time records, workplace policies, and communications and consider consulting an employment attorney about their rights and available options.

For more information, contact Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804, [email protected], [email protected], for a free, no-obligation legal evaluation.

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally-recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors and consumers in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

All representation is provided on a contingency-fee basis, and plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees, court costs, or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval. 

 

 

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]