Overtime pay for inside sales work. On May 8, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) issued guidance for all employees in Massachusetts who are inside salespersons and receive payment on a 100% commission basis.  In Sullivan v. Sleepy’s. LLC., 482 Mass. 227 (2019), the Court was asked to answer 3 questions.

First, the Court was asked if an employee’s commissions and draws may be credited against overtime wages.   The employer argued that they complied with the requirements of the Overtime Statute because they provided their employees with draws and commissions that equaled or exceeded 1 * the minimum wage * the number of hours worked up to 40, plus 1.5 * the minimum wage * the numbers worked in excess of 40 hours.  The SJC, however, held that such retroactive allocation is impermissible and that an additional overtime payment was owed.  They reached this conclusion because, “[i]f employers could undertake such retroactive allocation of payments, they would similarly lack incentive to comply with the wage and overtime statutes in the first place.” Overtime pay for inside sales work.

Second, the Court was asked to determine what the regular rate of pay was for purposes of computing any additional overtime payments.  The Court held that “the overtime rate is…one and one-half times the minimum wage for one hundred percent commission employees.”

Finally, the Court was asked if these same employees would be entitled to a separate payment for Sunday pay.  The Sunday Pay Statute provides that “[a]ny store or shop…which employs more than a total of seven persons, including the proprietor…shall compensate all employees engaged in the work performed on Sunday…at a rate not less than one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate.”  Attributing a similar purpose to the Overtime Statute and the Sunday Pay Statute, the SJC held that a 100% commissioned inside salesperson should receive payment for hours worked on a Sunday at a rate of one and one half times the minimum wage.

If you are inside salesperson who was paid on a 100% commission basis and worked more than 40 hours a week or on Sundays, you may be entitled to additional compensation.   Please contact us for legal advice. Overtime pay for inside sales work.

DOL Changes Rules on Unpaid Internships: What Employers Need to Know

In a move that will have significant implications for employers across the country, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has changed rules on unpaid internships, providing clearer guidelines on when internships must be compensated. These changes aim to protect workers from exploitation while ensuring that internships remain a valuable learning opportunity for students and early-career professionals. As part of this update, the DOL has redefined what constitutes a “bona fide” internship and clarified when an internship must be paid under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

What the DOL Changes Mean for Employers

The DOL’s new rules come at a time when unpaid internships have been increasingly scrutinized for potentially violating wage and labor laws. While internships are designed to provide valuable work experience, the DOL’s updated guidelines make it clear that employers cannot take advantage of interns by failing to pay them when their work qualifies as “employment.”

Under the new DOL rules, internships in the private sector are only exempt from payment if they meet a strict set of criteria. The intern must gain educational experience that aligns with their academic program, the internship must be for the benefit of the intern, and the intern cannot be displacing regular employees. Importantly, if the intern is performing work that directly benefits the employer—such as assisting with day-to-day business operations—they must be paid at least the minimum wage.

Key Changes in the DOL’s Internship Guidelines

1. Educational Benefit Must Be Clear: The internship must primarily benefit the intern, not the employer. Interns should be engaged in tasks that provide hands-on learning experiences directly related to their academic goals or career development. Work that merely supports the business operations of the company (like filing, answering phones, or general office tasks) may no longer qualify as unpaid work.
2. No Displacement of Paid Employees: Under the new rules, interns should not replace regular employees. Interns are meant to supplement existing teams, not take on tasks that a paid worker would typically perform. This is a critical distinction that could determine whether an internship program complies with federal wage and labor laws.
3. Clear Understanding of Unpaid Internships: If an employer is offering an unpaid internship, they must ensure that the position meets all of the educational and non-exploitative criteria laid out by the DOL. Internships that don’t meet these standards must be paid in accordance with the minimum wage laws.
4. Internship Duration: The length of an internship has also come under scrutiny. While there are no hard-and-fast rules regarding the duration, internships that extend too long without a clear educational component might raise red flags with the DOL. Employers should ensure that the internship is time-limited and focused on skill-building rather than just cheap labor.

The case involved the transportation company Oakhurst Dairy and a group of delivery drivers challenging their employer over alleged unpaid overtime. Maine’s overtime exemption law contained a list of tasks that were not eligible for overtime pay, written without a serial comma. The drivers argued that the missing Oxford comma created ambiguity, meaning the exemption should not apply to them.

Why Grammar Became a Legal Issue

Employment contracts, personnel policies, arbitration agreements, 1099 classification acknowledgments, hiring disclosures, overtime exemption clauses, and worker protection statutes depend on precise language. In this instance, the law exempted overtime for workers engaged in:

“canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution”

Because there was no comma before “or distribution,” the court interpreted the phrase as potentially describing one combined task instead of two separate exempt activities. That grammatical ambiguity was enough to side with workers, not employers, and the exemption was ruled too unclear to be enforceable as written.

Impact on Maine Labor Disputes and Worker Pay Rights

This decision matters for several reasons:

• Definition precision influences wage liability — Companies relying on exemptions must draft without ambiguity.
• Statutory worker protections override unclear contract interpretation — When grammar creates doubt, courts may interpret law in favor of employees seeking pay rights.
• Contract drafting accuracy becomes a compliance obligation — Employers cannot use vague lists to remove overtime duty or pay rights loopholes.
• Legal precedent extends beyond Maine — This case is now studied by HR professionals, corporate counsel, contract drafters, and labor attorneys nationwide as a reminder that punctuation can change legal outcomes.

Acknowledgment to Colleagues

Congratulations to attorneys David Webbert and Jeffrey Neil Young whose work contributed to the recognition of how grammar affects labor law fairness and contract clarity. This case has become one of the most widely discussed examples of contract wording impacting employee pay rights.

View Article

This issue reached new urgency after The United States Supreme Court agreed to consider the dispute as part of its current term. Courts across the country previously delivered conflicting interpretations, creating uncertainty for employees and employers alike.

Understanding the Overtime Exemption Dispute Service

The federal statute at the center of the debate provides overtime exemption for any:

• Salesman
• Partsman
• Mechanic

…who engages in selling or servicing automobiles. Some courts interpret service advisors as part of automobile “servicing,” placing them inside the exemption. Others determine that service advisors primarily sell services to customers, not vehicles directly, which may exclude them from the protected exemption class.

Because service advisors are customer-facing professionals—writing repair orders, recommending vehicle services, guiding maintenance decisions, and selling long-term service packages—their job duties do not align perfectly with traditional “mechanic” or “parts” classifications. That mismatch has produced sharply different legal results nationwide.

A Shifting Position from the DOL

Adding further complexity, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has altered its interpretation over time. Here is a simplified breakdown:

This history matters because employers have relied on DOL guidance for decades when building pay policies. However, recent legal interpretations increasingly focus on job duties instead of old handbook opinions. If a service advisor’s core function is “selling services,” not “servicing automobiles,” courts may classify them as eligible for overtime protections.

Potential Impact on the Automotive Industry

The Supreme Court decision could permanently shift overtime obligations for:

• Car dealerships
• Automotive service centers
• Vehicle repair networks
• Franchise service departments
• Multistate dealership groups
• Service contract sales divisions

Employers must prepare for both outcomes:

If the exemption is narrowed, dealerships may face increased overtime liabilities, including compensation audits, pay reclassification, and potential wage-and-hour claims.

If the exemption is upheld, thousands of service advisors may remain overtime-ineligible.

In making its determination, the court pointed to several common factors among the interns, including evidence that they:

• Performed job duties that closely resembled those performed by paid employees, including publication contributions;
• Were given on-the-job training;
• Were subject to the same rules and policies as employees and were treated in the same manner as employees by management;
• Had access to the same internal communication system that the employees used; and
• Received no specialized training that differed from training given to employees.

The court’s decision to certify the case as a class action did not speak to the legal validity of the underlying claim about alleged violations of the Fair labor Standards Act.  Instead, it solely opened the door for plaintiffs to contact other potential plaintiffs and invite them to join the class action case.

If you have questions about a class action labor dispute, contact our office to speak with a trained attorney.

Gordon explains that these rulings reflect a shift toward protecting modest-salary supervisors who historically met both salary and duties tests that allowed employers to avoid paying overtime wages even when employees worked more than 40 hours per week.

What Are the Department of Labor Overtime Rule Changes?

The new interpretation from the Department of Labor may revise how overtime exemptions apply, particularly for managers earning near the minimum salary threshold tied to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

These protections fall under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which governs wage rules, hour limits, and worker classification. Historically, many salaried managers earning at least $455 per week, and performing “managerial duties,” were exempt from overtime pay. The Department of Labor is now reassessing whether low-income supervisors truly fit the intended exemption.

A link to that article is included here (Boston Globe Article). Let me know your thoughts.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must compensate employees for any work that the employer did “suffer or permit” the employee to perform. It is a highly debatable standard that is often contested by workers who are classified as exempt employees, but seek compensation for overtime work that they performed. This was the situation in a case recently decided by the Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit.

The plaintiff in the case presented evidence that management changed his timesheets or instructed him to change his timesheets for the purpose of decreasing the amount of hours worked.  The court ruled against the employer, stating that the work was compensable if it was done with the employer’s knowledge, regardless of what is represented on a timesheet.

The significance of the ruling

The ruling is especially relevant to employees who wonder whether they can ever be paid for work that wasn’t recorded, and for employers who look to shield themselves by arguing that the information on a timesheet protects them against allegations of unpaid work. At least one court recognizes the inequity and ruled that, even with a completed timesheet that does not reflect off-the-clock work, an employee can present evidence regarding additional work hours for payment.

If you have a question about timekeeping practices and FLSA compliance, reach out to our office today to speak with an experienced attorney.

The U.S. Department of Labor is reviewing new legislation to change overtime salary limits.

Right now, exempt executive, admin, and professional workers must earn at least $455 per week. This minimum lets employers skip overtime pay. But this may soon change. U.S. Department of Labor wants to raise the weekly salary floor in stages.

The plan may look like this:

• Week salary minimum rises to $1,090
• Salary will double for exempt job types
• Overtime must be paid if salary falls below the limit

This rise may roll out over 3 years. Employers won’t be able to avoid overtime rules unless they meet the new minimum pay level.

Changes for Highly-Compensated Workers

The legislation also affects highly-paid roles.

The yearly salary exemption may rise to $125,000. This shifts from the current $100,000. The new limit may also adjust for inflation in the future. This keeps the floor updated over time.

Who Is Affected by This Legislation?

The proposal targets these job groups:

• Executive employees
• Administrative employees
• Professional employees
• Highly‑compensated employees

If these workers earn below the new minimum, then overtime rules will apply. Employers must pay extra hours worked over 40 per week.

If you have any questions about the legislation or any other overtime questions, contact us today.

Advanced Technology Innovation Corp. is a Massachusetts based company that provides technical professionals in engineering and IT to its customers. Its employees spend a great deal of time on the road, and the company had a policy of reducing the per diem payment based on the number of hours worked. Two former employees complained that this would reduce the amount the employee was owed if they worked overtime. Per diem payments are not usually included as part of a regular rate of pay, but the First Circuit held that because, in this instance, the company had calculated per diem payments based on the number of hours worked, this should factor into overtime calculations.

So, if an employee is regularly paid $20 per hour they would ordinarily receive $30 per hour for overtime, with no extra per diem payments. However, if the employee also receives an extra $4 per hour as part of per diem payments, they should receive an extra $6 per hour for daily expenses.

If your employer pays you on a piece work or per diem basis, feel free to contact us and discuss your rights.

It is a common myth that employees classified by their employers as “executives” or “professionals” are automatically exempt from overtime. The real question is whether the employee must have certain powers and spend their time supervising people. Among other powers, an executive must have the ability to hire and fire, and a professional must have advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning. President Obama will seek a stricter enforcement of these rules to ensure that to be classified as exempt the employee must be performing “executive” or “professional” duties 100% of the time. Furthermore, executives currently must make at least $455 a week to be exempt from overtime. President Obama seeks to raise the threshold to $984 a week, according to the New York Times.

So, hiding employees behind a title will be much harder to do. Just because an employee is identified as an “executive” or “professional” does not make them exempt from overtime pay. This is great news for employees who have been unfairly misclassified as executives by businesses to strategically avoid paying them overtime.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) contains a “motor carrier exemption.” This exemption states that any trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs will have their overtime hours managed by the Department of Transportation. This means that McCall will not be able to receive compensation under the Wage Act when he works more than forty hours in a week. The good news for truck drivers: if you drive a truck with a GVRW below 10,000 lbs, you may be entitled to overtime under Massachusetts state law, too

SmithKline’s Legal Win

In a close 5 – 4 ruling, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. Five judges agreed with him:
• Chief Justice John Roberts
• Antonin Scalia
• Clarence Thomas
• Anthony Kennedy
The court allowed SmithKline Beecham to classify reps under the outside sales exemption. The judges also weighed industry-wide risk. They feared 90,000 reps could trigger heavy back pay claims. However, this ruling only works inside this circuit.

What This Means for Pharma Workers

This decision did not erase employee rights automatically. Courts still check job power, real control, and payment duty. Influence alone cannot override earned hour reviews. Also, shared job tools or job titles do not prove exemption safety. So, firms must show final authority before blocking overtime.

Simple Job Check

Confirm these points:
• The company sets daily routes, timing, or targets
• Leaders judge performance or issue discipline
• Your role supports the firm’s main business work
• You work long hours without overtime approval
If true, you may still request a wage audit.

Take Action Early

Workers should save work hours, targets, and job proof. Then, request a pay audit before disputes grow. After that, speak to an attorney if firms deny overtime.

If you’re working long hours, without overtime pay, call us. The outside sales exemption is not your only protection.

Core Rules for Shifts and Rest

A nurse can work up to 16 hours in 24 hours. Then, the hospital must give 8 hours of rest. Leaders cannot punish a nurse for refusing extra hours. So, refusals cannot trigger discipline. This ensures safer schedules. Also, it lowers burnout risks. As a result, nurses keep stable work plans.

Union Nurse Exceptions

Union nurses may follow different terms. However, those terms depend on a valid Collective Bargaining Agreement. Still, job safety rules remain. So, workers must read each deal carefully. Yet, emergency limits still apply.

Health Policy Guidelines Coming

The law created the Health Policy Commission. This body will draft nurse safety guidance. Updates will continue as the policies finish.

Why This Decision Matters

This ruling improves nurse health protections. It builds safer patient care too. Also, it gives families income stability. Most nurses now avoid mandatory overtime pressure. So, their schedules become clearer. In short, stable hours help homes plan better.

Although the result may not surprise anyone, the issue had never been decided.

If you work for a Massachusetts company that has failed to pay you the full amount of wages due, call us for a free consultation.

Why the Administrative Exemption Failed

For years, many banks labeled underwriters as “administrative staff.” As a result, companies denied overtime using the Administrative Exemption defense. Yet, the court rejected that logic.

More importantly, the judges explained that underwriters do production work, not internal administration. They don’t design policies. They also don’t handle HR, marketing, or ads. Instead, their job focuses on loan approval. This is the core service a bank delivers to customers.

Production vs. Administration: The Key Difference

To clarify the rule, the court used simple reasoning:

• Unlike executive planners, these workers never control strategy.
• Rather than advising clients, they approve loans using preset rules.
• Since approval work is essential for the bank to operate, it belongs to “inside-the-business” labor.
• Therefore, companies must treat this role as production-based employee work.

Money Impact on Workers

Many underwriters reported they worked long hours on a salary. However, their employers never paid time-and-a-half. Because of this decision, affected staff may request pay audits. They may also reclaim unpaid overtime when employers apply the exemption incorrectly. This increases legal risk for financial firms that block earned wage rights.

Quick Self-Check for Underwriters

Ask yourself:

1. Does your employer set the rules you follow daily?
2. Do you approve loans instead of advising loan strategy?
3. Does the bank depend on your approvals to deliver loans?
4. Do you work 40+ hours but receive no overtime rate?

If most answers are yes, your job may meet overtime eligibility in this circuit.

Final Note

In short, the court confirmed that companies cannot use discretion or titles to cancel overtime rights. They must pay overtime when the job performs essential, rule-driven production work.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Baby Zack’s Smoke Shop must pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

What the Court Looked At

The court reviewed key questions. First, it checked if the business was part of tribal self-government. Then, it looked at whether enforcement would block tribal sovereignty. Next, it tested if the company operated across state lines. Finally, it confirmed if federal overtime law could be enforced.

Ultimately, the court ruled yes to federal protection. Therefore, tribal location alone cannot cancel overtime rights for retail workers.

The court explained that:

“A retail company involved in interstate commerce cannot escape federal overtime laws by operating on reservation land.

Why This Decision Matters

Now, here are the major takeaways:

✅ Most importantly, workers on reservations may claim overtime pay
✅ Additionally, retail businesses trading across state borders must obey federal overtime laws
✅ Moreover, tribal sovereignty does not block U.S. Department of Labor when the business trades in interstate commerce
✅ Also, employers cannot force unpaid leave if reasonable accommodations allow continued work

Court’s Key Reasoning (Simplified)

• If a business trades across state lines, Fair Labor Standards Act applies
• However, tribal sovereignty remains intact for internal tribal governance matters
• But, retail employment involving tribal and non-tribal customers is not internal governance
• So, the Ninth Circuit allowed federal overtime law enforcement

A Warning for Employers

Some employers believe reservation land creates immunity. Nevertheless, this is a mistake. In fact, cases like Solis v. Matheson show courts will apply federal overtime rules when interstate business is involved. Thus, employers who deny overtime may face lawsuits.

Workers employed on reservations by interstate retail businesses are protected by overtime rights under the FLSA.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Department of Labor to enforce the law inside the reservation because the business was involved in interstate commerce.

Illegal Pay Structure Exposed After 2007 Raid

In 2007, federal investigators launched a controversial immigration raid at the factory. The event shocked local communities and pushed labor lawyers to dig deeper. Next, worker interviews revealed widespread pay violations. The investigation uncovered pattern-based wage docking, false overtime labels, and direct company control over workers. Many staff members reported that managers disciplined them, scored performance, set shift systems, and controlled payroll. Because of this, workers held a strong joint-control claim. Crucially, the company formed a shadow corporation, called Front Line Defense, Inc., to mask overtime pay abuse.

Sham Payroll Tactic Blocked Overtime Wages

Managers scheduled many workers for long shifts. First, they logged full-time hours under Michael Bianco. Afterwards, they logged night overtime under Front Line Defense. Still, workers operated the same machines during both shifts. They completed the same factory tasks. Unfortunately, the fake payroll design blocked time-and-a-half overtime pay. One worker, Elsy Hernandez, confirmed the double-paycheck design. At times, she worked 14 hours a day. Yet, she never received true overtime payment. Later interviews showed similar patterns among hundreds of workers.

Illegal Meal & Rest Time Cuts Added to Claims

Company systems deducted pay for tiny schedule delays. For example, the firm cut 15–30 minutes from pay when workers clocked in 1 minute late. Even when employees arrived on time, long time-clock lines caused small delays. Still, the company blamed workers. Then, it docked pay regardless. Many drivers also reported that they paid job costs the firm should have covered. These included machine use penalties, fuel, insurance, and shift gear.

Department of Labor Supervises $613,000 Payout

Now, the U.S. Department of Labor will supervise $613,000 of the restitution payout. Additionally, the remaining funds will support community worker rights groups and partial legal cost recovery. Importantly, six named plaintiffs will receive separate awards recognizing their courage. The payout per worker will vary. Still, each one gets compensation for wage docking and missed overtime. This applies whether or not they worked double shifts. All workers employed between 2004 and March 2007 can claim back restitution. Moreover, the policy applies regardless of immigration status, location, or residency.

Who This Ruling Protects

The settlement confirms stronger rights for:

• Factory line workers
• Warehouse staff
• Defense-gear operators
• Double-shift staff
• Hourly workers under company control

Why This Matters for Worker Income Stability

This settlement matters because pay stability protects families. It supports rent, meals, medicine, school fees, and medical coverage. Without triple damages pressure, companies often delay fair settlements. However, this case signals that shadow payroll tricks can no longer dodge wage laws. Courts also confirm that core business tasks count as inside company work, not side services. Mislabeling that work as contractor work also sends a red flag.