Royal

Clarification on FLSA Overtime by Federal Appeals Court

February 1, 2023

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees are considered to have worked overtime when they work more than forty (40) hours in a single work week. Those employees are then owed time-and-a-half for their overtime work. However, salaried workers whose primary duties are related to the higher-level management of business functions, such as accounting or human resources operations, are exempt from those requirements.



In the case of Walsh v. Unitil Service Corp., a lower court failed to use relational analysis in determining whether claimants were “administrative” employees exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.


The opinion, issued on January 11th, 2023, stems from a dispute over whether dispatchers and controllers managed their employer’s business operations. Doing so would exempt those employees from the overtime rules.


The Appeals Court ruled that the lower court had wrongly determined that dispatchers and controllers working for Unitil, who spent roughly 60 percent of their workdays monitoring electrical and gas pipeline systems, were engaged in regulatory compliance, quality control, and health and safety tasks. While dispatchers and controllers were tasked with monitoring gas and electric distribution networks, they were not designing, planning, testing, or evaluating those systems.


The Appeals Court held that the duties of dispatchers and controllers working for Unitil, “. . . lack the level of generality required by the regulation and the case law to conclude, without further inquiry, that they were engaged in ‘management or general business operations’ as opposed to routine, day-to-day affairs.”


Therefore, the Appeals Court has remanded the case back to the lower court.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.  

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: