|
|
The Employer E-Letter: Labor and Employment Law News from the Duluth, Minnesota law firm of
Hanft Fride, A Professional Association.
Editor, Richard R. Burns, rrb@hanftlaw.com or 218.529.2433.
Please feel free to forward this e-mail or share it with others. If there are other topics of interest to you or any other suggestions concerning this newsletter, please let us know.
==========================================================
BEST WISHES FOR A HEALTHY AND HAPPY HOLIDAY!
THIS MONTH'S TOPICS:
- 30-MINUTE MEAL PERIOD MANDATORY
- NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT FOUND INVALID
- EXEMPT EMPLOYEES MAY BE REQUIRED TO WORK MINIMUM HOURS
- NO PAY IN LIEU OF PAID TIME OFF FOR INELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE
- TIP OF THE MONTH
==========================================================
30-MINUTE MEAL PERIOD MANDATORY
Except in special circumstances, which are not very well explained, a Minnesota Federal District Court Judge recently ruled that, "sufficient time to eat a meal" is 30 minutes or more under Minnesota law. The Judge created as authority a Minnesota regulation addressing "hours worked" for purposes of calculating overtime under the state statute. The regulation states that 30 minutes or more is ordinarily long enough for a sufficient meal period that may be unpaid, but a shorter period will be adequate only under special conditions. Please recall in addition to a mandatory meal break, for persons working eight or more consecutive hours, an employer must allow each employee adequate time within each four consecutive hours of work to utilize the nearest convenient restroom. Each of these obligations can be modified by a collective bargaining agreement. The mandatory work break (thankfully) is paid, but not the meal break. Frank, et al. v. Gold'n Plump, Inc. (D.C. Minn. 2007.
==========================================================
NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT FOUND INVALID
Par Ridder and one other former Pioneer Press employee were recently barred from working for the Star Tribune for different reasons. In Star Tribune v. Ridder, et al. (Ramsey County District Court 2007), it is of significant interest that Ridder's non-compete was found to be invalid for lack of consideration. It was signed without additional consideration several weeks after he started his employment. However, he still was barred from working for the Star Tribune as he had misappropriated and misused the Pioneer Press's trade secrets and confidential information in violation of the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secret Act. He also had breached his common law duty of loyalty owed to his employer. Therefore, the Court determined that the proper remedy was a one-year injunction against Ridder from employment with the Star Tribune. Another former employee's non-compete was part of her initial employment agreement and had separate consideration, so it was unenforceable. This case again reminds us of the need to have it clear before employment starts that employment will be conditional on executing a non-compete agreement, and in other cases more considerations than continued employment (such as a monetary payment, pay increase or other tangible benefit) are necessary to make a non-compete enforceable.
==========================================================
EXEMPT EMPLOYEES MAY BE REQUIRED TO WORK MINIMUM HOURS
In a recent Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opinion, it was made clear that an employee may implement job requirements that require minimum hours as well as a requirement to make up hours lost due to personal absences of less than a day, if the employee is not docked salary for failure to meet such requirements. At issue was a client who wished to require exempt employees to work either 45 or 50 hours a week, depending on whether they were officers of company, as well as the personal absence requirement. The opinion makes it clear that such rules are permissible and may result in discipline up to and including discharge for consistent failure to observe the requirements. The opinion concluded, however, that failure to make up the time as required or to work the required number of hours does not constitute a violation of "work place conduct rule" for which an employer may impose a disciplinary suspension for one or more full days. (Opinion Letter FLSA 2006-6).
==========================================================
NO PAY IN LIEU OF PAID TIME OFF FOR INELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE
In a recent case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that an employee has not earned the right to payment in lieu of paid time off when she has failed to or cannot meet the conditions in a valid employment contract entitling her to the payment. In Lee v. Fresenius Medical Care, (Minn. 2007), a provision in the employee handbook allowed employees who chose to resign and provide acceptable notice to receive pay in lieu of earned but unused paid time off, but employees terminated for misconduct were not eligible for pay in lieu of earned but unused paid time off. Since employees are not entitled to vacation pay under Minnesota law, the court determined that pay in lieu of paid time off is a benefit offered to employees at the discretion of the employer and, thus, can be subject to conditions on eligibility within the employment contract. In reaching their decision, which reversed a Court of Appeals holding to the contrary, the court interpreted Minn. Stat. § 181.13(a) as solely a timing requirement indicating when an employer must pay earned wages to a discharged employee as opposed to declaring what the employer must pay.
As a result of the court's ruling in Lee, employers are encouraged to examine their employee handbooks and to consider placing conditions on discharged employees' eligibility for pay in lieu of paid time off. Under Lee, employers that choose to offer paid time off as a benefit may provide circumstances under which employees are entitled to paid time off and payment in lieu of paid time off as long as the contract provisions are not in conflict with existing statutes.
==========================================================
TIP OF THE MONTH: The Department of Labor is increasing enforcement of overtime requirements. We have already talked about the importance of good time records, even for exempt employees, through use of a time clock or written time records. Another general rule is to not allow employees to eat lunch at their desks because answering the phone or greeting a client or customer is paid time.
==========================================================
Hanft Fride's business and trial lawyers are located at 1000 U.S. Bank Place, in Duluth Minnesota. Visit our website at www.hanftlaw.com. In addition to general information on the firm and our attorneys, you can find past issues of this newsletter. Keep checking back for new information, and let us know if there is anything you would like to see added to the site that would help you and your organization. Our employment lawyers include Richard Burns, Tom Torgerson, Rob Merritt and Gabe Johnson.
==========================================================
The information provided in this E-letter is general in nature and should not be used as a substitute for professional services and advice. The communication and receipt of this information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should consult with their legal counsel before taking any action on matters covered in this E-letter.
==========================================================
To subscribe or unsubscribe to Employer E-Letter, e-mail your request to Richard R. Burns, rrb@hanftlaw.com or call 218.529.2433.
==========================================================
Copyright 2007 by Hanft Fride, P.A. All rights reserved. Hanft Fride, A Professional Association, 1000 U.S. Bank Place, 130 W. Superior Street, Duluth, MN 55802. Phone 218.722.4766; fax 218.529.2401.
|
