Skip to main content

Chipotle Files Motion for Contempt Over Alleged Violation of Overtime Regulation Injunction


Back in 2016, the Department of Labor proposed a regulation that updated the salary threshold for overtime eligibility, from $23,660.00 to $47,476.00.  The regulation would have resulted in nearly 4.2 million new workers becoming eligible for overtime pay and became a talking point on the campaign trial and during the final months of President Barack Obama's administration (naturally, President Obama supported this proposed regulation).  However, readers might recall that the regulation was blocked late last year and never went into effect.  Currently, a nationwide injunction is in place while the case is pending.  With President Donald Trump taking office in January (and having his nominee for the Labor Secretary confirmed a few months ago), I think it is likely that this Obama era overtime regulation will remain dormant for the foreseeable future.

With that being said, undeterred, a lawsuit was filed this past June by a former Chipotle worker who alleged the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay her overtime wages (in accordance with the "shelved" proposed overtime regulation).  Attorneys for the former worker argued that the overtime rule was actually in effect and that the injunction only limited the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing the regulation (& therefore did not stay the effective date of the regulation or otherwise prevent it from going into effect).  Since the lawsuit was filed, Chipotle has maintained that so long as the nationwide injunction was in effect, the proposed regulation did not apply to its workers.

On Tuesday, attorneys for Chipotle filed a Motion for Contempt in the federal court in Texas that issued the nationwide injunction and have argued that the former worker and her attorneys "intentionally disregarded" the injunction and instead improperly chose to file suit to enforce the overtime regulation that never went into effect.  In Chipotle's Motion, it is argued that any interpretation of the injunction that has been advanced by the former worker or her attorneys is simply wrong.  In its Motion, Chipotle has asked the Court to enforce the injunction, prohibit the former worker and her attorneys from further litigation in attempting to pursue enforcement of the proposed overtime regulation, and award Chipotle its fees and costs for having to pursue the Motion.  No response has been filed to the Motion yet, but I would certainly be interested to see how this plays out...


For additional information:  https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3911442/Chipotle-Contempt.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more