Labor Law Talk  
Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Go Back   Labor Law Talk > Employment and Labor Law > OHSA, State, & Federal Labor Laws Posting Requirements > Minnesota Labor Laws

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-16-2006, 12:58 PM
deevoid162 deevoid162 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default Exempt vs. non-exempt/Minnesota Laws

Recently my employer changed most of my department from exempt/salaried to non-exempt/hourly, with the exception of me. The non-exempt employees do the same thing I do with one small exception, in that I occasionally go out to visit clients (approximately 5-6 hours per week.) They are required to be in the office 40 hours per week, and are now paid overtime for any additional required hours, or are given comp time off to limit the weekly hours to 40. I am also schedule at 40 hours per week, have the same performance requirements, and am required to be here 'for coverage' during that time frame, even if a client meeting happens outside of those scheduled hours...needless to say, I usually end up working 45-46 hours per week on average, and am not getting paid anything for the additional hours, nor am I being given any comp time off. Being that the job is identical to that of the non-exempt employees for the scheduled 40 hours I am in the office for coverage, is it legal for them to classify me as exempt based on the additional hours I am visiting clients outside the office? If they are calling me exempt, do I have the right to work only 40 hours since the performance expectations are the same? It seems as if they are getting the best of both worlds from me...coverage, and not having to pay me for my time.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-17-2006, 05:49 AM
Pattymd Pattymd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 27,688
Default

What exactly are your job duties? If they qualify you as an exempt employee, your employer may treat you as one, even though they may choose not to treat other employees with the same duties as nonexempt. That is not illegal.

Even if you are truly exempt, that does not give you the right to set your own hours. The employer maintains that right for exempt employees as well as for nonexempt employees.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-17-2006, 12:15 PM
deevoid162 deevoid162 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4
Default MN exempt/non-exempt

I am an admissions representative for a proprietary college, which actually presents another issue...in order for the college to be accredited, admissions representatives can't be classified as salespeople...so on the accreditation side of things, I'm not a salesperson, yet on the exempt/non-exempt issue, they are classifying me as a salesperson....very confusing. I am thinking they are either breaking the law in calling me a salesperson, or they are violating the accreditation rules in not calling me a salesperson...My job is to enroll students in the college, call to set up interview appointments with them, and visit high schools to promote the college at high school career/counseling centers (the out of the office thing, and the only difference between my job and that of the non-exempt employees.) It seems I should be classified the same way for both issues, not one way for accreditation and another for exempt/non-exempt status at the convenience of the college...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
non exempt to exempt laws pdorny Labor Laws 7 02-18-2006 10:58 AM
CA Labor laws to protect Exempt employees? scottzc@gmail.com California Labor Laws 2 12-29-2005 01:08 PM
Exempt vs non-exempt laws in CA user245 California Labor Laws 1 06-02-2005 11:09 AM
Exempt vs non-exempt laws in CA user245 Labor Laws 1 05-31-2005 04:04 PM
Replies to Richard Macdonald. Dale Eastman Federal and State Tax Law 59 04-28-2005 07:56 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© LaborLawTalk.Com 2008. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer and Conditions of Use

The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation. Please note that some of our forums also serve as mirrors to Usenet newsgroups. Many posts you see on our forums are made by newsgroup users who may not be members of LaborLawTalk.com

Topics pertain mainly to the following States:
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada North Carolina North Dakota New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming