Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP
219-464-4961

uncategorized Archives

PPACA Mandates New W-2 Requirements

kwolak.jpgOn June 28th, the United States Supreme Court upheld arguably all of the substantive provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In addition to all those in the health care and insurance industries who were waiting to know the fate of this law, you can add another interested group: your accounting department.

Up In Smoke

tleeth.jpgThe Indiana General Assembly has passed and Governor Daniels has signed into law Indiana's first statewide smoking ban which went into effect July 1, 2012. This new law prohibits smoking in public places, places of employment and within eight feet (8') of any public entrance to a public place or place of employment. Smoking is not restricted in outdoor areas even if it is the location where persons are normally employed in their jobs. The restriction only applies to enclosed areas of a structure and eight feet (8') from the public entrance to such places.

Seventh Circuit Holds That Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives Are Exempt From Overtime Requirements Of FLSA Under Administrative Exemption

In a case of first impression in the Seventh Circuit (which includes Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin), the Court of Appeals held that pharmaceutical companies Eli Lilly & Co. and Abbott Laboratories properly classified their sales representatives under the administrative exemption to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Susan Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9300 (7th Cir. May 8, 2012), Jirak v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9300. Current and former sales representatives sued their employers, claiming that they were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. The employers contend that both the administrative exemption and the outside sales exemption, 29 U.S.C. ยง 213(a)(1), remove the sales representatives from the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The Seventh Circuit, observing that the outside sales person exemption issue is before the United States Supreme Court in another case, focused its decision solely on the administrative exemption. The Plaintiffs argued that they were not exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA because they did not actually sell the drugs to the physicians, but merely engaged in promotional and sales-like work focused on a limited, select group of physicians. The Plaintiffs argued that the administrative exemption is designed for higher level employees whose work is targeted at sales, promotional and marketing policies of the company overall. In rejecting the Plaintiffs' argument, and holding for the employers, the Court of Appeals held that the sales representatives' work is properly characterized as administrative:

Time Spent Changing Into Protective Safety Gear Non-Compensable Under FLSA

lkroeger.jpgThe Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") does not require employers to compensate employees for the time they spend in putting on and taking off their work clothes in a locker room at the plant ("clothes-changing time") and in walking from the locker room to their work stations, and back again at the end of the day ("travel time"). Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9302 (7th Cir. May 8, 2012). The Court of Appeals observed that Congress intended "to allow the determination of what is compensable work in borderline cases ... to be settled by negotiation between labor and management." The Court further observed that the collective bargaining agreement between U.S. Steel and the steelworkers union in this case does not require compensation for "clothes changing time" or "travel time" and that none of the previous collective bargaining agreements between U.S. Steel and the union since 1947, nine years after the FLSA was enacted, required it either. The Court refused to expand the FLSA to require employers to compensate employees for this time. In fact, the Court of Appeals observed that the Plaintiffs' position in this case is "adverse to their union, to the interests of other steelworkers, and to their own long-term interests", reasoning that

EEOC Develops New Plan To Focus On "Systemic Litigation"

kkerr (1).jpgComplaints ("Charges") of unlawful discrimination based on gender, race, color, national origin, age, religion or disability, are filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Typically, the EEOC investigates a charge and, if appropriate, will issue a Notice of Right to Sue Letter. The complainant has ninety (90) days after his/her receipt of the Letter to file suit. If the 90 days passes, any suit is barred.

ARE YOU SPEAKING THE EEOC'S LANGUAGE?

lu_hwe_logo.jpgEmployers considering whether to insist that their employees speak only English in the workplace should be aware that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") provides guidance about when such a requirement is permissible. In an apparent response to the influx of workers whose primary language is other than English, the EEOC has scrutinized employers' English language policies to determine whether they violate federal law.

Supreme Court Clarifies The Scope Of Construction Manager Liability For Subcontractor Employee Injuries

lu_hwe_logo.jpgIn Indiana, construction firms engaged as construction managers must navigate many pitfalls and take precautions to avoid liability for workplace injuries outside their control. A construction management contractor may be liable to the employee of a subcontractor for workplace injuries where the construction management contract imposes a duty for safety or the construction manager assumes such a duty through its actions.

Super Lawyers Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP | 2018 | Recognized by Best Lawyers AV Preeminent | Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Ratings Best Lawyers | Best Law Firms | US News 2017 Listed in Best Lawyers | Linking Lawyers And Clients Worldwide
Email Us For a Response

Contact The Firm In Valparaiso And Merrillville, Indiana

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Hoeppner Wagner & Evans LLP
Office location Office location

Valparaiso Office
Chase Building
103 East Lincolnway
Valparaiso, IN 46383

Phone: 219-464-4961
Fax: 219-465-0603
Map & Directions

Merrillville Office
8585 Broadway - Suite 790
Merrillville, IN 46410

Phone: 219-769-6552
Fax: 219-738-2349
Map & Directions