Hi my name is Jason(kimmy is my fiance:)

I have been working as an "Assistant Kitchen Manager" for the last two years. I am a salaried employee and I work over 50 hours a week EVERY week with no overtime. Sometimes my hours even go above 60 a week.

Like I said I am an "assistant" so technically I am a glorified line cook who they can work crazy amounts of hours at pretty much no cost to them. No wonder our kitchen has extremely low labor costs??!! Because of me!

Now I would say only a few hours a week consist of me doing actual managerial duties like computer work and inventory. Other than that I'm basically on my feet cooking and doing twice as much work as my boss for half the money.

Should I have been paid overtime? Should I make an appointment with a lawyer? Will they have to pay me for ALL my overtime in the past two years if I have a case?


*** I am not the only person this company has done this too. I know another AKM personally who they were paying a mere salary of 19,000 a year for 60+ hours opening a new store with no overtime.

No need for a lawyer. If you feel you have been compensated improperly, you can file a claim with the state DOL which is free. The DOL will investigate and determine classification and back pay if due.

and if not true will my company know that I have contacted the DOL?

Well, they can't investigate and order the company to pay if they don't tell the company who they're checking about.

Are you concerned that you will be fired because you filed the claim? That's a civil suit for wrongful termination just waiting to happen.

and if not true will my company know that I have contacted the DOL?

That depends upon how the DOL handles it.

If they go in and do an audit on the entire company, the employer might not have a clue about who told.

OTOH, if they show up and say "Jason says you owe him overtime..."

You should be protected against retaliation for contacting the DOL, but I am not sure if PA has whistleblower laws or not.

Well I'm actually planning on moving out of state in a few months so I think I should go for it anyways. It is hard earned money that I deserve if in fact they do owe it to me.

Anybody on here have similiar problems? How did it play out for you..did you get your money? From what I have stated does it look likely that they owe me overtime.

Anybody on here have similiar problems? How did it play out for you..did you get your money? From what I have stated does it look likely that they owe me overtime.

Not me personally, but one of my clients got audited by the US DOL, likely because of a tip along the lines of your problem, where multiple employees are involved. The DOL went back two years and the client owed several grand in back wages for overtime. The auditor recommended a fine, but his boss overruled that.

Oh, the employees got their money within a month of the audit, except one, who had moved with no forwarding address. His money is still waiting for him to claim it.

So the DOL will be able to let me know based on my circumstances if I am probably owed backwages and then they will take action by investigating ( I'm assuming this includes going through all my payroll and time clock reports?) I think I should just definalty not ignore this because even though I may be leaving I do not want to see this company screw over any more hardworking individuals by making them work slave hours with no overtime.

They should, generally speaking. I agree with you; the employers that are trying to comply with the law should not be disadvantaged by those who are not.

So the DOL will be able to let me know based on my circumstances if I am probably owed backwages and then they will take action by investigating ( I'm assuming this includes going through all my payroll and time clock reports?)

The DOL won't be able to tell you a thing based upon what you tell them. They must talk to the employer.

Your case is not isolated in your company, at least based upon your comments. Ideally, they will audit at least two years worth of payroll and interview some employees (good bet you will be one of those "randomly" selected).

The company wide audit will not happen if you don't let the DOL that the problem goes beyond you.

I may sympathize with employers a lot, but I have no use for those that violate the laws, even if it is because they don't understand them.

The DOL won't be able to tell you a thing based upon what you tell them. They must talk to the employer.

Your case is not isolated in your company, at least based upon your comments. Ideally, they will audit at least two years worth of payroll and interview some employees (good bet you will be one of those "randomly" selected).

The company wide audit will not happen if you don't let the DOL that the problem goes beyond you.

I may sympathize with employers a lot, but I have no use for those that violate the laws, even if it is because they don't understand them.

Yea thats what really angers me...I think they know exactly what they are doing. I'm calling the DOL tomarrow:D Thank you for all of your advice...I will update on what has happened.

The DOL won't be able to tell you a thing based upon what you tell them. They must talk to the employer.


Yep. I didn't mean to imply that they would give you an answer over the phone. :o But they will inform you of the outcome of their investigation.

No need for a lawyer. If you feel you have been compensated improperly, you can file a claim with the state DOL which is free. The DOL will investigate and determine classification and back pay if due.

Why no lawyer? That's free too!

The FLSA requires payment of attorneys fees and expenses - plus you get an aggressive advocate who has an incentive to pursue every last dime - a benefit you definately don't get with a civil servant who is paid a salary and needs to move files off the desk at a discount to improve their own statistics.

I didn't know that, GOL - that's a good thing to know!!!

That is assuming that there is a violation.

That is assuming that there is a violation.


Yeah, it assumes there is a violation - duh, nobody recovers if there isn't.

That is assuming that there is a violation.

It also assumes:

1) adult worker is at issue

2) united states law applies

3) claimant and attorney may both communicate in common language

4) claimant and attorney will work together

5) claimant does not die during interview with lawyer

6) lawyer does not die during interview with claimant

7) lawyer is able to communicate with the court in a common language

8) lawyer is actually licensed to practice law, or is not caught before resolution of the claim

9) the employer remains solvent long enough to pay any claim

10) the lawyer will take the case on a contingency fee

11) a whole bunch of other obvious assumptions that also don't need to be mentioned - because they are OBVIOUS.:eek:

Nonetheless, a lot of people read these threads and, despite how obvious the assumptions may be to us, they are not obvious to those who don't work with it every day. It wouldn't be anywhere near the first time someone assumed that because something was true in thread A, it would also be true in thread B, even though the circumstances in thread B were completely different.

Elle's point is valid.

Nonetheless, a lot of people read these threads and, despite how obvious the assumptions may be to us, they are not obvious to those who don't work with it every day. It wouldn't be anywhere near the first time someone assumed that because something was true in thread A, it would also be true in thread B, even though the circumstances in thread B were completely different.

Elle's point is valid.

We cannot possibly think of every conceivable assumption someone could make or not make, or every single contingency. The decision tree becomes a forest.

Which is why if it isn't clear that there is and someone wants to avoid possibly having to pay a lawyer, they can file a claim without one.

Yep, there are many variations and, sometimes, we miss some of the little details that could make all the difference. Sometimes, that is because we don't ask the right questions to get the details that would make the difference. Sometimes it is because the responders here don't understand ALL of the laws. I can handle the laws for my business, but who knew that airline employees are covered by the Railway Labor Act? (well, aside from joec).

We cannot possibly think of every conceivable assumption someone could make or not make, or every single contingency.

I agree completely. Which is why it only makes sense to leave a general warning that an employee who files an invalid claim is not entitled to free representation, since we are only providing general information.

The decision tree becomes a forest.


:D

So true and the reason we have lawyers to clear cut.

We cannot possibly think of every conceivable assumption someone could make or not make, or every single contingency.

I agree completely. Which is why it only makes sense to leave a general warning that an employee who files an invalid claim is not entitled to free representation, since we are only providing general information.


Actually, on a contingency fee, the lawyer will explore the case and the client owes nothing if there is no case. At least, that's the way we here in the sticks practice.

:D

So true and the reason we have lawyers to clear cut.


I like that - I'm gonna use it on my business card magnets I use to throw at ambulances.;)

Works for me.

Look, I can't have my best responders sniping at each other over minor issues. I have enough problems keeping some of the posters away from each other's throats. Can we please call a truce?

:eek:

I like that - I'm gonna use it on my business card magnets I use to throw at ambulances.;)

I am getting a copyright on that!

Injured, you are entitled to your opinion. But I am putting you on notice right now; if you intend to start following people around the boards for the sole purpose of putting down the responders, that is not going to be accepted.

i find it ironic that ellemd, scottb and pattymd all like to argue with anyone that disagrees or finds what they say to be false. but of course, look at what part of the country they come from :eek: that sure says a lot to me abought who and what they are wouldn't you agree GaOvertimeLawyer?

Hey, I argue a lot too. People who put their opinions out there have egos, and I'm just as guilty as the next at putting my @ss on my shoulders and getting my hat handed to me.

All of the people mentioned are volunteers here. I'm a "volunteer" here. I'm definately pro-employee, anti-tort deform, and love a good conspiracy theory almost as well as solid science. It takes all types to bring balance to the force. . . er, forum.:D

Alright guys I'm going to skip over all the jib jab and get back on subject.


Are you guys saying that the DOL won't be able to do enough for me and/or not going to get me ALL the money I deserve and I need a lawyer to do that? I can't afford a to pay a lawyer in chances that this does not go through.

All I need to know...will the DOL take care of me or not?

Alright guys I'm going to skip over all the jib jab and get back on subject.


Are you guys saying that the DOL won't be able to do enough for me and/or not going to get me ALL the money I deserve and I need a lawyer to do that? I can't afford a to pay a lawyer in chances that this does not go through.

All I need to know...will the DOL take care of me or not?

I am pretty sure you were advised that the DOL could take care of you.

You were also advised that you might be able to find a lawyer who would take care of you for no cost to you (the fee being paid out of the settlement).

If you can find a lawyer willing to take your case for no cost to you, including no charge out of your settlement, go for it.

But the DOL is a guaranteed no cost solution.

Will the DOL take care of you?

The U.S. DOL has a good reputation for taking care of some people. Correct me if I am wrong here, folks.

The state DOL's not so much so. Depending on where you are (sorry, forgot while writing) - they can be useless.

When advising to go to DOL, I ASSUME the U.S. DOL is meant - right? Again, correct me if I'm wrong, it's important.

They don't choose to help everybody, but the ones they choose to help they help thoroughly.


You didn't ask, but I'm gonna add that lawyers who do FLSA cases (and there aren't many) almost always do so on a contingency basis - meaning no up front cost for you - and try to obtain their pay from the employer (which is allowed under law). In fact, I bet if you call ten lawyers who handle FLSA cases you will not find one that wants an up front fee or an hourly rate from you. The reason? If given a set of very favorable facts at the interview, those of us that do FLSA will know right up front when there's a good case and will expect to get paid begrugingly at the end by the employer.

In my opinion most administrative agency are not very good Federal is a little better than state.State is a little better than county.County is a little better than city.
The only time they ever really get the employers attention,is when their along for the ride by a Federal or State revenue collection agency such as the IRS,or state revenue and recovery agency.
IRS,and revenue recovery is a different breed of cat,they are good at what they do. When they discover wage and hour discrepancy they will turn it over under work share agreements.
Once the work is done then they may do O.K.
As far as the EEOC,State and municipal civil right office. They are the worst,in allot of cases they cause more problems than they solve.
JoeC

And I will add that how good a job the state does, varies by state. As in all things.

I agree that in general, the Feds do a better job.

It should be noted, however, that the US DOL will, at least in cases where an employee has not been paid all hours worked (I'm not certain about cases where the employee has not been paid overtime) they will only support minimum wage times hours worked. It is their position that since the law only requires minimum wage, anything over and above that is outside their jurisidiction. For that reason, in many states, particularly those states where minimum wage is higher than Federal, it can be beneficial to go through the state DOL instead of the Feds.

(I'm not certain about cases where the employee has not been paid overtime)

The US DOL tagged one of my clients for several thousand dollars in overtime payments, based on the regular rate of pay, and not the federal minimum, which is substantially lower than the state minimum.

Thats funny they wont touch anything above Federal minimum in this state(that is not a whole lot).
Which only proves the point they are inconsistent.
JoeC