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.  

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: