Affordability is a main concern of many motorists when in the market for automobile coverage, but there are certain aspects of auto insurance that should not be overlooked or ignored because a cheap rate has been found. Yes an ideal situation would be to pay the least amount possible for a policy, but quality should not be sacrificed. Fortunately, with careful shopping and helpful tips, consumers may be able to get top notch coverage at a price that is right.

Many individuals shop for automobile policies with the goal of finding the cheapest premium available, but tend to overlook the company that may be offering it. This may pan out well if the insurer is a familiar one, but the truth of the matter is that there are many other lesser known companies available to offer coverage, and depending on the driver, at the most affordable price. By taking the right steps a consumer can obtain a policy from one of the best rated car insurance providers at a low cost. A good company may be unfamiliar because they do not heavily advertise, but it does not necessarily mean that they are not in good financial shape or do not have great customer support and may be much cheaper than more well know insurers. On the other hand, individuals should definitely make sure to check that a company is in good standing both financially and with the state, especially if the deal looks to good to be true.

Find Best Rated Insurance at an Affordable Price

There are certain steps that need to be taken if an individual wishes to not only get the best rates, but also a quality insurance policy from a reputable carrier. Consumers should realize that obtaining the right coverage is done by covering necessary risks with a company that can offer a competitive price, is financially stable and has a good reputation with the state and customers. Prior to locating top rated insurers one must complete two steps; this includes determining the amount of coverage needed and getting quotes from various companies.

The amount of protection desired can play a big role in the price that is paid in premiums, especially if the consumer is in need of comprehensive and collision. Insuring certain vehicles for physical damage can more than double a premium and it may be wise to obtain as many quotations as possible; after doing so, the quotation from insurers will more than likely be substantially different. Although, one carrier may be willing to insure the vehicle at a much lower price than the another, it does not necessarily mean that the insurer is not offering quality and this is why it is very important to look into carriers prior to purchasing. Some individuals may dismiss an unknown company to do business with a more familiar insurer while others will pounce on the lower premium to save money;  this could be a mistake down the road that can be prevented.

Purchasing a policy from a familiar carrier may be something that can give a motorist peace of mind, but can also put a dent in a pocketbook. There are many companies that are not as well known because they may not operate on a national scale, but can provide a quality product for a lot less money. On the other hand, becoming insured with an unfamiliar insurer to save a few dollars can be trouble if the company is not licensed, is struggling financially, or has a poor customer satisfaction level; all of which can be checked quite easily. With the help of the various online resources, a carrier can be checked out in a matter of no time. Several rating agencies are available on the Internet that grade insurers based on financial outlook and are accessible free to the public. This will give a motorist an idea of what kind of shape a company is in financially. One can also use the help of websites such as the one provided by the Illinois Department of Insurance which serves as a one stop shop and will provide residents with a company’s licensing status, complaint history, and financial strength. All aspects should be analyzed to ensure that premiums are being paid to a top rated company.

The state of CO requires that all motorists must be financially responsible for traffic accidents that may be caused as a result of operating an automobile. Drivers must have compensation readily available to pay for any bodily injury and/or property damaged caused to another party. Due to the high amounts that are required by the state, the most common way used to satisfy this law is with the purchase of a car insurance policy consisting of limits that meet the state’s requirements.

As a minimum, motorists who choose to purchase Colorado auto insurance policies must obtain coverage with liability limits of $25,000 for bodily injury to one person, $50,000 for bodily injury per accident and $15,000 for property damage. Although this may seem adequate to cover expenses arising from a traffic accident, there are many cases where this may not be true and it may be wise for consumers to consider purchasing higher limits for at an additional cost. It is also advised to consider additional coverage that can help protect the policyholder. Liability policies will not cover any injuries or damages caused to the insured or their vehicle if they are at fault for causing the collision.

Additional CO Car Insurance Coverage

As of January 1, 2009, the state began requiring mandatory “med-pay” coverage (also known as medical payments) to be included with each policy with at least $5,000 to pay for injuries sustained by drivers and passenger resulting from a traffic accident regardless of fault. However, consumers do have the option to reject this coverage in writing at the time a policy is purchased or renewed the car insurance company must save proof that the policyholder rejected med-pay for a minimum of three years. Insurers are required to offer this protection and quote a premium at the time a motorist purchases a new policy or at renewal.

Similar to medical payments, insurers are also required to offer Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage at the time a policy is purchased or renewed and this option can be refused by the consumer. Although state law requires drivers to carry and maintain automobile policies, there are individuals that choose to operate without coverage or purchase low liability limits. This protection will pay for medical expenses from injuries sustained by a driver and passenger if struck by an uninsured motorist or if the at fault party has limits that are exhausted from the costs of medical care. It is advisable to read the Colorado Department of Insurance Uninsured/Underinsured FAQ’s prior to rejecting this coverage to weigh the benefits.

An increase in the annual-dollar-volume threshold for FLSA “enterprise” coverage to a level higher than $500,000.  This current minimum amount was first set in 1989, and a combination of inflation and other economic developments over the last 20 years means that this sum no longer serves Congress’s purpose of excluding many small businesses from the FLSA’s requirements.  Consequently, the financial, regulatory, and claims-related burdens of the FLSA fall heavily upon a much-larger segment of small employers than Congress intended.

Of course, many details must be worked through before initiatives like these could be proposed or adopted.  In addition, politically speaking, the FLSA has proven to be especially difficult to change.  But perhaps high unemployment and the still-ailing economy provide atypical motivation for a coalition drawn from employees, employers, and government representatives who favor bringing the law into the 21st century.

A section authorizing private-sector employers and employees to have an agreement or understanding permitting the use of compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay.  At the moment, this is not permitted under the FLSA for non-exempt employees in the private sector – most must receive overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a single workweek, even if they would rather have paid time off instead.

There have been some proposals in this area in recent years, but they have tended to be unduly complicated and/or too narrowly focused, and in some ways they threatened adverse consequences that outweighed the advantages. One possibility would be to adopt an appropriate version of the current FLSA public-sector compensatory-time provision to cover private employers.  Another might be to allow employees and employers to reach an understanding or agreement that overtime compensation will be due only after the employee has worked more than 160 hours in four consecutive workweeks.

A modification saying that many, most, or even all bonuses and incentive pay may be excluded from the “regular rate of pay” used to compute FLSA overtime compensation.  At present, overtime must be calculated on most such payments, including even non-cash prizes or awards of various kinds.  The added costs and complications this entails lead many employers to reduce the amounts they are prepared to offer or to forgo offering bonuses or incentives altogether.

An amendment stating that employees may be classified as exempt from the FLSA’s minimum-wage, overtime, and timekeeping requirements based upon the amount of their compensation alone.  Even though the FLSA directs the U.S. Labor Department to establish the parameters for certain exemptions, historically the agency has taken the position that it is not currently authorized to adopt any exemption that is based solely upon an employee’s compensation level.

“Commissions” are typically computed as a percentage of sales.  However, Section 7(i) does not require  that a commission be figured this way.  The payment can be of some other nature, if it is otherwise based upon or directly keyed to the goods or services the establishment sells.  Recent court decisions indicate that management has at least some leeway for creativity in designing its commission payments.

Even if it applies, Section 7(i) does not relieve an employer from every FLSA obligation.  For one thing, management is required to have a record showing which employees are paid under Section 7(i); must have a written description of the agreement or understanding under which the employee is paid; and must document the “representative period” selected.  Moreover, it is still necessary to maintain accurate records of each such employee’s daily and weekly hours worked.  The employer is also required to keep a separate record of any noncommission earnings paid to the employee, such as bonuses or pay supplements not based upon or keyed to sales.

Of course, in today’s supercharged wage-hour litigation environment, it is vitally important to be careful in setting up and maintaining a Section 7(i)-based pay plan.  For instance, a compensation system calling for a regular payment keyed to a percentage of sales which an establishment can always be expected to make, and under which the employee rarely if ever receives any more than a slight additional commission amount, might be found not to be based upon a “bona fide commission rate”.  This would also be a danger if an employer pays a periodic draw which the employee’s computed commissions rarely or never exceed.

It is also essential to find out whether the applicable laws of a state or other jurisdiction will permit an employee to be paid in a way that complies with Section 7(i).  Some states have no exception analogous to Section 7(i).  Others have overtime exemptions that are similar to but different from Section 7(i) in important ways; in this situation, the employer must follow the tougher exemption rules if it wants to avoid paying overtime to employees subject to that jurisdiction’s requirements.

It would be unlawful to “interfere with, restrain, or deny” the employee’s exercise of these rights, as it would be to discriminate or retaliate against the employee in this regard.  Among other things, the U.S. Labor Department would be empowered to investigate alleged violations and to assess civil money penalties of from $1,000 to $5,000, and employers would face tough remedies for alleged retaliation or violations of other kinds.

It is of course difficult to say whether or how soon there might be any significant action on this measure, at least if it stands alone.  However, if recent history is any guide, this sort of proposal might find its way into an unrelated omnibus bill of some other kind, the passage of which is pressed in a post-election November rush.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act turns 72 years old this year.  Even though today’s working world is radically different from that of 1938, the FLSA’s principles remain largely unchanged and have become increasingly counterproductive in a global economy.  Many believe that it is imperative to harmonize this strict, unforgiving law with modern realities, including by making it more flexible, more adaptable, and better-attuned to the practical concerns and preferences of present-day employers and employees.

Further evidence of this growing sentiment surfaced last week in the form of a letter from the HR Policy Association to U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.  In that correspondence, the organization advocated a reform-oriented collaboration among the Labor Department, the HRPA, and other interested parties.  This would be a good starting point, but any meaningful success will depend in substantial part upon whether fundamental legislative changes in the FLSA itself can be brought to fruition.

Any list of proposed FLSA statutory revisions would be a long one, but high priorities should include:

•   A provision assigning at least some legal responsibility to non-exempt employees to report their worktime accurately. Today, employees sometimes claim months or years after-the-fact that their records reflect less time than they actually worked.  The absence of any FLSA “give” on this means that such claims are routinely credited by the courts and by U.S. Labor Department investigators, even in cases where an employer has in place a policy designed to produce accurate time records, and even when there is room to question whether an employee is being truthful.  Perhaps this could be addressed by, for example, creating a legal presumption that an employee’s time records are accurate, if (i) the employee records his or her own hours worked each workday and each workweek; (ii) the employee reviews those records each workweek and certifies that they are correct; and (iii) the employer maintains, enforces, and in practice actually observes a written policy both stating how hours worked are to be recorded and requiring that all hours worked be accurately and correctly recorded each workday and each workweek.

More than ever, retailers are being squeezed between rising costs (including labor expense) and sagging revenue.  What if there was a lawful way to compensate retail employees that gives them a stake in working to increase sales while at the same time eliminating the need to pay overtime?  There is such an alternative, but many employers are overlooking it.

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s Section 7(i) provides an overtime exception for certain employees paid under a bona fide commission pay plan.  The exception applies to:

(1)     Employees of a “retail establishment”;

(2)   Who receive more than 50% of their earnings in a “representative period” from commissions; and

(3)    Whose regular hourly rate of pay for each overtime workweek is more than 1.5 times the FLSA minimum wage.

For Section 7(i) purposes, a “retail or service establishment” is a location 75% of whose annual dollar volume of sales is not for resale and is recognized as retail sales in the particular industry.  The “representative period” may be any timeframe of one month or longer (although U.S. Labor Department’s interpretations suggest an upper limit of one year)

At the same time human-resources professionals are wondering how they can keep up with the work necessitated by existing employment laws, Senators Bob Casey (D. PA). and Tom Harkin (D. IA) have introduced S. 3840 to “permit employees to request, and to ensure employers consider requests for, flexible work terms and conditions . . ..”  This objective sounds benign enough; as usual, the devil is in the details, many of which would be supplied by what would no doubt be extensive regulations prepared by the U.S. Labor Department.

Under this bill, employees would have a right to submit an application for a change in how many hours they must work, the times they must work, and/or where they are assigned to work.  At a minimum, the application would have to state the change sought, the impact the employee “thinks” it would have, and how “in the employee’s opinion” this effect might be handled.  The proposal does not say whether the time an employee spends preparing this application would have to be counted as hours worked.

An employer would then be required to consider this application, including that management would have to:

•   Meet with the employee about the matter within 14 days;

•   Provide a written decision with 14 days after that, including stating the grounds for any such denial in terms established by the law and regulations;

•   Entertain any request for reconsideration the employee makes pursuant to his or her “right” to do so within 14 days;

•   Meet with the employee about the reconsideration request within 14 days after it is made;

•   Provide an adequate written decision on the reconsideration request with 14 days after that;

•   Permit the employee to attend these various meetings with “a representative of [his or her] choosing” (subject only to the representative’s having unspecified “qualifications” that regulations would define); and

•   Postpone any such meeting if the employee’s representative is “not available” to attend.

The concept of insurance has come a long ways since its invention thousands of years ago when merchants would insure cargo in case it was stolen or lost at sea. Nobody in that era could imagine the concept of an automobile and twenty years ago, not many would have thought that a person would be able to shop and purchase vehicle coverage through a computer by way of something called the Internet, and even print out the proof of a policy almost instantly.

Prior to the evolution of the Internet, shopping for automobile policies was a daunting task and one that could consume much of a person’s time. Individuals either had one of two choices; either call numerous insurers and agents or drive down to several offices and sit down with an agent and negotiate with each until the best deal and the right coverage is found. Fortunately for the consumers that live in today’s day and age, technology and the World Wide Web have made it possible to shop and even buy insurance online easily and conveniently.

Buying auto insurance Online

Literally thousands of websites have been developed that allow visitors to shop around and compare quotes for car insurance, but there is a difference in the service that a person chooses to use when shopping online. Consumers have the option of visiting the websites of the actual insurer, although this can be time consuming as well since the majority of companies will offer only their rates; this means that a visitor would have to input information into each website in order to obtain a quote for comparison. Since it is recommended to get multiple quotes prior to making a purchase this may take a bit of time. The alternative is a comparison website that allows a visitor to input basic information once and retrieve the quotes of multiple companies in a matter of a few minutes; whichever method is chosen, both are effective and may help find the lowest price.

When looking to buy coverage over the Internet, individuals must also be careful and make sure that the company is reputable prior to providing any information, even if just getting a quote. When submitting any type of info online consumers should make sure that the website is secure. Legitimate websites go through the extent of providing visitors with a comfortable shopping environment and will have the website verified to be secure. When information to obtain quotes or purchase a policy is asked to be submitted the URL in the address bar should begin with an https: rather than just an http: and there will usually be a lock icon on the right hand side of the address bar. The Texas Department of Insurance also recommends that shoppers ensure that companies are licensed, which can easily be done by contacting the state regulator in which the driver resides. Buying policies online can be much more convenient than traditional methods, but one must take certain precautions and this is true offline as well.

auto insurance companies . With so many insurers available to offer automobile coverage to motorists it can be overwhelming for a consumer to find the right car insurance company that can provide adequate protection at an affordable rate. This especially true in states such as California, which contains over one hundred carriers licensed to issue policies. The best way an individual can find a good insurer that is reasonably priced is to compare the rates from each one, and although this may take a bit of time it can be well worth the effort when the right insurer is found.

There are factors that outweigh others about a carrier in the eyes of motorists and the right company for one individual may not be for another. The best auto insurance companies are known for not only having affordable rates, but are also those that are known for having outstanding customer support and are financially sound. Depending on the motorist, some may prefer a company that can offer the cheapest rate, while others value customer service and are willing to pay a little extra for top notch support, and then there are those that want to go with a household name because they assume that the insurer is not going to falter financially. Fortunately, with the right amount of research, consumers can make sure to get insured by a carrier that meets all of these qualities and it does not have to be very time consuming.

Find a Reputable auto insurance Company

Though consumers usually do not look forward to shopping for coverage and comparing insurers, it is extremely important to do so. Every carrier is priced differently and has a reputation based on business practice that motorists should be aware of. Unfortunately, many motorists choose an insurer based on the cheapest rate without taking the time to look into the actual company to ensure it is reputable. Thankfully, the Internet has provided valuable tools that allows individuals to complete this task in a timely manner. Price is important to most drivers and should be a starting point to locating an insurer.

Fortunately, consumers now have the ability to shop online and obtain quotes from a comparison website and eliminate the need to contact several companies individually. This is a great way to find and compare the rates of carriers, but a savvy shopper should take the shopping process a bit further. Rather than relying on price alone to determine the insurer that will provide coverage, motorists should be aware that tax dollars are used to protect them in the form of state government regulation. Websites such as the one provided by the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions & Professional Registration offer residents a fast and easy way to view a company’s complaint ratio, their standing with the state and how financially sound a provider is. So once a few of the most affordable quotes are found, a consumer can make sure that the insurers being considered for coverage have a good customer satisfaction level, are licensed and have a good financial outlook; this can all be done in just a few minutes by visiting the state department’s website. Cheap rates are tempting, but individuals should ensure that they get what they pay for.

Floridians are required to maintain automobile coverage at all times while operating a vehicle and automobiles must continuously be insured in order to maintain registration in the Sunshine State. The state requires that all self propelled vehicles with four or more wheels be covered by a car insurance policy consisting of a minimum of $10,000 in property damage liability (PDL) and $10,000 in personal injury protection (PIP).

Although this does satisfy Florida laws, these requirements are quite low compared to the majority of other states and can leave a driver uncovered in certain instances and in some cases, facing financial hardship.

Compared to FL, the state of New York requires that motorists carry a minimum of $50,000 in personal injury protection, which can help cover policyholders much more adequately for bodily injuries sustained in an accident than the $10,000 required in the Sunshine State. It may be wise to compare the cost of Medical Payments from multiple Florida auto insurance companies which may cover expenses that PIP may not to see if this coverage can be afforded, especially if the individual does not have a health care plan. Additionally, the property damage liability limits may prove to be inadequate in the event that the insured is at fault for causing a traffic accident where substantial damage is sustained by another party’s vehicle.

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the average sales price of a new automobile is $28,400, therefore, if an individual was to cause a collision where the other vehicle was to be declared a total loss, the motorist may be held responsible for paying any compensation due above and beyond the $10,000 minimum requirement. A common suggestion is to purchase a policy consisting of $50,000 of property damage liability.

Beneficial Car Insurance Coverage in FL

Although the state only requires two types of protection to be listed on a policy, there are additional options that can be added to a motorist’s coverage that may be quite beneficial. One such option is to purchase protection from uninsured drivers. The state of Florida has very strict laws when it comes to keeping vehicles insured, but this does not seem to deter many individuals from driving without proper auto insurance policies in place. It is estimated that nearly 25% of motorists are occupying the roads while uncovered. This among the highest percentage in the nation and it may be a good idea to protect against such operators.

Insurers offer Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist coverage that pays for bodily injuries to the policyholder, family members and passengers of the automobile if injured due to the negligence of an uninsured or underinsured motorist. Covered scenarios include being struck by a party without liability coverage, has inadequate liability limits or if victim of a hit-and-run. This addition to a policy will pay for medical expenses and lost wages once PIP limits have been exceeded.

Although adding this option to a policy may cost a little bit more in premiums it can be well worth the cost. According to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, individuals who are struck by a party that does not have insurance will have to contact the Bureau of Financial Responsibility where a judgment will be enforced and the at-fault party’s driving privileges and registration will be suspended for 20 years or until the judgment has been taken care of.

Many motorists may think that because they are unlicensed that an insurer may be hard to find and there are others that may believe that lack of a driver’s license may cause a auto insurance company to charge extremely high rates for policies. In many cases this may not be an accurate assumption and by shopping around consumers may be able to locate a carrier that is willing to provide coverage at a reasonable to those who may be unlicensed or even licensed out of the country. Fortunately for individuals who are in such a situation, an affordable policy may be out there and a consumer simply needs to take the time to find a company that is willing to provide it.

Individuals should know that there are actually companies that target and specialize in consumers that are not licensed, internationally licensed, or even have an out of country identification card. There are carriers that are willing to offer car insurance without license to individuals through certain guidelines. Although, a motorist must be aware that the reason for being licensed can hike up prices if it is due to certain infractions. Suspension of driving privileges due to a conviction of certain offenses such as operating a vehicle while impaired will likely raise the rates of a premium, but having an international license may not cost the driver much more than being domestically licensed.

Who May Need Insurance without a License

While it may not seem to make much sense to obtain automobile policies as an unlicensed consumer, there are a few good reason to do so. One such reason is that if an individual wishes to keep the registration valid in states that require continuous coverage to do so, they will need to maintain an active policy. Although it may not seem like a good investment, failure to keep a car insured can lead to fines and penalties that can amount to more than a premium if a lapse occurs and the state is made aware of it. Also, if a vehicle owner is intending to have a driver operate and borrow the automobile, it will most likely need to be covered. According to the Wisconsin Consumer Guide to auto insurance a borrowed vehicle will often be covered by the policy which can help an unlicensed automobile owner should such a situation come up.

A very common reason to purchase a policy without a driver’s license is to have driving privileges reinstated. Many states require that once licensing has been suspended that one of the requirements to have the suspension lifted is by providing valid proof of coverage. Another reason that policies may need to be maintained is because an individual is financing a vehicle. Although a driver may become unlicensed it does not mean that they do not need to abide by the loan agreement. Most financial institution will require that borrowers keep automobiles insured against physical damage as part of the contract. Although individuals feel that maintaining coverage even though they cannot drive may be a waste of money, there are several instance where it may be necessary.

As diplomats from around the world gather this week at the United Nations headquarters in New York City for the annual General Assembly meeting, they are encountering a rare sight: scaffolding hung from buildings’ exteriors.

Ove Arup & Partners says it is “incredulous” over a lawsuit by the Art Institute of Chicago accusing the company of errors on the museum’s 264,000-sq-ft Modern Wing. Filed in federal district court in Chicago, the lawsuit claims the multidisciplinary engineer failed to discharge its obligations during design and construction of the wing, which opened in May 2009.

Utah’s recent best-value infrastructure procurement for a $1.1-billion highway expansion and reconstruction came with a controversial, unexpected cost: a $13-million payout to the second-place proposer to end its protest of the award.

Google released SketchUp 8 on September 1, 2010, with a number of notable enhancements, many of which will make SketchUp more useful as a sustainable design tool.

Over the spring and summer, Los Angeles County Museum of Art Director Michael Govan opened the freshly completed but still under-wraps Lynda and Stewart Resnick Exhibition Pavilion, the second gallery building on the LACMA campus designed by the Italian architect Renzo Piano, for a series of tours for collectors, curators, critics and donors — and on a handful of days to the general public.

Green buildings may present special challenges for firefighters because of new technologies, building materials, and building techniques. That’s the concern Fire Safety and Green Buildings—Bridging the Gap, a new website at www.GreenBuildingFireSafety.org developed by the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM); a handbook on the topic has also been released.

Public libraries across the country are cutting employees and closing facilities, but the one that serves the borough of Queens, New York, is taking an opposite tack: It’s planning to open one of its largest branches to date, and it’s hired architect Steven Holl to design it.

Ford Motor Co. says its new 2011 F-150 pickup truck, available later this year with four new engines, is targeting best-in-class fuel economy with its basic model, popular among construction fleet owners.

Poor management of available resources at the Virginia Dept. of Transportation resulted in $877 million in transportation funds left unspent during the last two fiscal years, says an independent audit commissioned by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R).

Courts and litigants have struggled over how to figure overtime due to an employee who was misclassified as exempt and who was paid a fixed salary for his or her hours worked.  The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires that non-exempt employees be paid 1.5 times their regular hourly rates for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

However, for a misclassified salaried employee, satisfying this requirement necessitates a couple of threshold determinations.  First, the regular hourly rate must be derived indirectly and after-the-fact, because the employee was not paid on an hourly basis.

Second, a court must decide how this rate will be used in computing back-pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek:  Is the employee due 1.5 times this rate for those overtime hours, or is the correct approach to calculate overtime premium by multiplying those hours times one-half of the regular rate?  The answer depends upon whether the employee’s salary is seen as having been his or her straight-time pay only for the first 40 hours, or instead for all hours worked. If the salary covered only the first 40 hours, the employee has received no pay for the overtime hours and is owed 1.5 times the rate.  But if the salary was the employee’s straight-time compensation for all hours worked in a workweek, including overtime hours, then the employee is due only the half-time overtime premium.  How this gets resolved can have tremendous significance in situations – such as class actions – involving large numbers of overtime hours.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) recently weighed-in on this in Urnikis-Negro v. American Family Property Services, 2010 WL 3024880 (August 4, 2010)(opinion below).  The plaintiff was misclassified as exempt under the FLSA’s administrative exemption, was paid a fixed salary, and worked varying numbers of hours each workweek (usually far exceeding 40).  In fashioning its overtime award, the lower court followed an approach taken by several federal appellate courts and relied upon the U.S. Labor Department’s longstanding interpretive rule known as the fluctuating workweek calculation (“FWW”) (29 C.F.R § 778.114(a)).  See, e.g., Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F.3d 1224, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2008); Valero v. Putnam Assoc. Inc., 173 F.3d 35, 39 (1st Cir. 1999); Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 835 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (5th Cir. 1988).  The lower court figured a regular rate by dividing the employee’s weekly salary by her total hours worked in the workweek, and then calculated her overtime premium by multiplying one-half of that rate times her overtime hours worked in the workweek.  The employee asked the Seventh Circuit to overturn this, contending that the FWW method was inappropriate to her situation.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the lower court was wrong to rely upon the Labor Department’s FWW method as the basis for calculating overtime owed in a misclassification case, concluding that the interpretive rule is forward-looking and is not a remedial measure.  It noted the rule’s reference to “a clear mutual understanding” between the employer and the employee, which contemplates a before-the-fact agreement on this method where the employee is paid a fixed salary.  The circuit also observed that the rule speaks of the employee contemporaneously receiving overtime compensation.  In a misclassification situation, the parties have no such mutual understanding, and there is no contemporaneous overtime payment, because the employer has treated the employee as exempt.

Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the lower court reached the correct outcome.  It said that, in the case of a misclassified employee paid a fixed salary to work varying numbers of hours, the regular rate is determined by dividing all of the hours worked in the workweek into the salary for that workweek.  Because the resulting regular rate represents straight-time pay for all the workweek’s hours (including overtime ones), the employee is owed the product of multiplying one-half of the regular rate  (i.e., the “half” of “time and one-half”) times the total overtime hours.  The circuit relied upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel, 316 U.S. 572 (1942), in which the Supreme Court used this approach under analogous circumstances.  The Supreme Court noted in Missel that its method was consistent with longstanding Labor Department guidance.

Urnikis-Negro represents a principled approach to determining overtime for a misclassified employee.  It avoids the temptation to utilize FWW as a justification, even though the Labor Department’s interpretive rule uses the correct arithmetical computation.  Rather, the decision is grounded upon binding Supreme Court precedent, which itself relied upon longstanding, historical guidance from the Labor Department.  In following this clearly correct approach, the circuit was adhering to the guiding general principle on the regular rate, which states: “The regular hourly rate of pay of an employee is determined by dividing his total remuneration for employment (except statutory exclusions) in any workweek by the total number of hours actually worked by him in that workweek for which such compensation was paid.”  29 C.F.R. Section 778.109.  Urnikis-Negro provides useful clarification and guidance for employers on a computational issue of potentially enormous practical impact in assessing potential exposure in misclassification cases.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  Urnikis-Negro also cited with approval the Labor Department’s Opinion Letter No. FLSA2009-3 (Jan. 14, 2009), which was a response to a 2007 Fisher & Phillips opinion request.  Fisher & Phillips did not invoke FWW in its request, but the Labor Department nonetheless predicated its favorable answer upon those principles.  Our request and the reply can be accessed below.

◊   Have a comment or something else to add?  Please use our comment feature below.