St. Louis Overtime Lawyer Blog

According to a recent article, U.S. courts have seen a dramatic increase in overtime lawsuits in the past four years. Many workers are suing their current or former employers for failing to pay legally-required wages. Most of these suits involve claims made pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), which requires most U.S. workers to be paid at least minimum wage (currently $7.25/hour under federal law and higher in some states) and time-and-a-half for overtime hours (hours over 40 in a workweek).

The FLSA was passed in 1938 during the FDR administration as an effort to establish guaranteed minimum pay for workers, to assist workers in supporting their families without having to work excessive hours, and to decrease unemployment by incentivizing employers to spread work among a greater number of employees (rather than concentrating the work among fewer employees). Aside from a handful of minor amendments, the FLSA has not substantially changed in the 74 years since its passage. So what explains this recent increase in FLSA lawsuits?

Since the height of the recent recession, both employers and employees have been subject to enormous pressure. Employers are trying to survive on smaller profit margins, and are typically looking to shave costs wherever possible. Many employers have responded to this challenge by seeking increased production out of their existing (and often trimmed down) workforce. The result is that employers sometimes allow (or require) employees to work a greater number of hours without proper pay. This sometimes leads to employees getting paid less than minimum wage or being deprived of legally-required overtime pay. Employers often unlawfully (and sometimes intentionally) misclassify employees as exempt from overtime in order to avoid paying them overtime pay.

Like employers, employees too are victims of the negative economic climate. Many workers are working more hours for little to no extra pay. Some work "off the clock" because they are encouraged or required to do so by their employer. Sometimes, workers feel like they have to do whatever is necessary to keep their job because unemployment rates are high, and the prospect of becoming re-employed after losing or quitting a job seems remote. And it is common in this current age of technology for a job to encroach more into an employee's personal life by virtue of the employee staying in contact with the office during evenings and weekends with smartphones, ipads, and other devices. The line between an employee's work life and personal life has become blurred.

Common wage violations committed by employers include:

- The employer treating an employee as "exempt" and not entitled to overtime pay merely because the employee receives a flat salary, when the employee's job duties render the employee as non-exempt;

- An employee is asked to spend time engaging in work for which he or she is not paid (so-called "off the clock" work, i.e., duties performed before clocking in or after clocking out, such as preparation, clean-up, putting on or taking off safety gear, work performed during breaks, traveling between work sites after the start of but before the end of the business day, etc.). Such time may also include time during which the employee is not actively working but is "on-call" and also time spent attending mandatory work meetings or training;

- The employer fails to compensate the employee for overtime that was not "pre-approved." The law requires eligible employees to be paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek if the employer knew or should have known about the time worked. Employees may be disciplined if they work unauthorized overtime in violation of the employer's policy, but the employer must still pay the overtime;

- Denial of overtime pay to commissioned employees who do not regularly travel away from the employer's workplace. Employees who perform inside sales, etc. are typically entitled to overtime pay if they are not regularly and customarily away from their employer's place of business (or for sales employees who work out of their home, regularly and customarily away from their home).

If you believe that your employer has denied you legally required pay, or if you want to learn more about your rights, you should contact a Missouri employment lawyer.

Recently, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a St. Louis employment law firm, working in connection with Holloran, White, Schwartz, & Gaertner, LLP, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of its client, Jessica Boewer, against St. Louis-based restaurant and bar, Ice Kitchen. At the time of the events alleged in the suit, Ice Kitchen was owned by the same restaurant group that owns the Drunken Fish chain of restaurants located in St. Louis and Kansas City.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Boewer alleges that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor while she was employed by Ice Kitchen. The lawsuit further alleges that the supervisor's sexual harassment continued, despite employee complaints about the harassment and knowledge of the harassment by other managers. Ms. Boewer seeks to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

To read a copy of the lawsuit click here.

If you have been subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment at work, or if you wish to better understand your rights in the workplace, you should contact a Missouri employment lawyer.

Recently, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri overtime law firm, working in connection with Weinhaus & Potashnick, filed a class action overtime lawsuit against Convergys Corporation, which provides outsourced call center operations to various companies. According to its website, Convergys has 77,000 employees in 69 call centers located throughout the U.S. To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of telephone customer service representatives ("CSRs") at a call center located in Hazelwood, Missouri, alleges that Convergys violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri Law by failing to pay CSRs for time they spent working "off the clock" on a daily basis before and after their shifts. Specifically, the CSRs claim that they were required to engage in various preparatory activities--such as reading e-mails and logging into and loading various computer programs and applications--to become ready to begin taking calls before the beginning of their paid shifts and during unpaid lunch breaks. The CSRs also allege that they were required to log out of computer applications after completion of their paid shifts. The CSRs claim that they consistently work 40 or more hours per week, and that their unpaid work time amounted to unpaid overtime. In the lawsuit, the CSRs seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

If your employer permits or requires you to engage in work while you are "off the clock," you may be entitled to additional pay under the law. If you wish to assert a claim or better understand your rights to fair pay, you should contact a Missouri overtime lawyer.

In March 2012, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri overtime law firm, working in connection with Kuhlmann LLC, filed a class action overtime lawsuit against SSM Health Care St. Louis. To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a class of security guards who worked at DePaul Health Center, alleges that SSM violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri law by failing to pay the employees for time they spent working "off the clock" during unpaid meal breaks. The suit alleges that SSM--by virtue of a company payroll policy, practice, and/or system--to automatically deduct thirty minutes of break time for meals when security guards systematically work through and/or during such periods.

In addition to their unpaid overtime wages, the class members seek recovery of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

If your employer permits or requires you to engage in work while you are "off the clock," you may be entitled to additional pay under the law. If you wish to assert a claim or better understand your rights, you should contact a Missouri overtime lawyer.

On March 14, 2012, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a St. Louis wage and hour law firm, working in connection with Dashtaki Law Firm, LLC, filed a class action wage lawsuit against HotShots Sports Bar & Grill, which has several locations in the St. Louis metropolitan area. To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

The lawsuit--filed on behalf of a class of servers, bartenders, and other tipped employees--alleges that HotShots violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri law by misappropriating wages from its employees by implementing and enforcing an unlawful tip pooling policy. The suit alleges that this unlawful tip policy caused employees to be paid below minimum wage, in violation of the law. In addition to their unpaid wages, the class members in the lawsuit seek recovery of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

The current minimum wage, under both federal and Missouri law, is $7.25 per hour. The law allows restaurants and other employers to pay certain tipped employees less than the full minimum wage and then take a credit (called the "tip credit") for tips that employees receive from customers. Under federal law, the "server minimum wage" is $2.13 per hour, and under Missouri law is $3.63 per hour. Missouri employers are required to follow Missouri law because it is more beneficial to employees.

Tip pooling is a common practice in the restaurant industry. A tip pool is a policy that requires employees such as servers to share their tips with other employees who assist them in serving customers, such as bussers.

In order to take advantage of the tip credit, an employer must strictly follow certain rules. First, the employer must give employees notice that it intends to take a credit against the minimum wage for all tips earned by employees. Second, in implementing a tip pool, tipped employees cannot be required to share their tips with employees who do not regularly and customarily receive tips, such as "back of the house" employees (cooks, food preparers, dishwashers, etc.) and managers. A failure to follow these rules invalidates a tip pool, and under the law, all tips paid to employees are disregarded for purposes of calculating whether they were paid at least minimum wage.

If you are a tipped employee, and you are required to share tips with back of the house employees or managers, you may be entitled to additional pay under the law. If you wish to assert a claim or better understand your rights to fair pay, you should contact a Missouri wage and hour lawyer.

On March 2, 2012, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri ovetime law firm, working in connection with Kuhlmann LLC, filed a class action overtime lawsuit against St. Louis-based Pulaski Bank. To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a class of bank tellers and teller supervisors, alleges that Pulaski Bank violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri law by failing to pay the employees for time they spent working "off the clock" on a weekly basis before and after their designated shifts, as well as during unpaid lunch periods. The suit alleges that by virtue of a company policy not to pay for overtime work, Pulaski assigned work to bank tellers that was not able to be performed within the tellers' "scheduled" 40-hour workweek, and Pulaski pressured and/or required tellers not to record their overtime hours. Also, the lawsuit alleges that Pulaski improperly "offset" schedules from workweek to workweek by unlawfully granting "comp time" in order to avoid paying overtime compensation to tellers.

In addition to their unpaid overtime wages, the tellers seek recovery of liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

If your employer permits or requires you to engage in work while you are "off the clock," you may be entitled to additional pay under the law. If you wish to assert a claim or better understand your rights to fair pay, you should contact a Missouri overtime lawyer.

As indicated in a previous blog post in May 26, 2011, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri overtime law firm, working in connection with Crone & McEvoy, PLC, previously filed a class action lawsuit against Roark Travel Service Network, LLC to recover unpaid wages for a group of salespersons (liners and closers). Roark is in the business of selling travel and vacation packages in Branson, Missouri, and it is part of the Shepard of the Hills Entertainment Group.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that they were unlawfully denied minimum wage and overtime pay, in violation of federal and Missouri law. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify the case as a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to Order Roark to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of all class members who have worked as salespersons (liners and/or closers) at Roark from July 26, 2008 to the present, and to allow Plaintiffs to send notice to the class advising them of their rights to opt-in to the lawsuit and assert a claim for unpaid wages.

On February 7, 2013, the Honorable Richard E. Dorr, with the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. The class notice will be sent out soon, on or before March 8, 2012. All of those receiving the class notice will then have sixty (60) days to opt-in to the lawsuit to assert a claim for unpaid wages.

Members of the class can opt-in to the lawsuit by signing the consent form and sending it to Riggan Law Firm, LLC.

On February 10, 2012, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a St. Louis employment law firm, working in connection with Kulhmann LLC, filed a disability discrimination lawsuit on behalf of its client, Nancy Bullock, against Midwest Medical Supply, LLC, a St. Louis-based medical supply company with offices in twelve different states.

In the lawsuit, Ms. Bullock, a Collection Analyst formerly employed by Midwest Medical Supply, alleges that she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her disability, and that she was ultimately fired because of her disability, actual and/or perceived, in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Bullock claims that on March 24, 2011, she requested a reduced work schedule as an accommodation for her disability, and that Midwest Medical Supply terminated her employment two business days later as a result of her request.

The Missouri Human Rights Act prohibits employers from making personnel decisions based on certain protected categories, such as disability, race, gender, pregnancy, age, religion, national origin, or ancestry. Under the Missouri Human Rights Act, an employee who is the victim of unlawful discrimination can recover actual damages (including lost wages and benefits), emotional distress damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

In the current economy, many discussions center around job creation and economic growth. Unemployment rates are high, both nationally and in the State of Missouri. And many of those who are employed are under-employed. Bi-partisan consensus seems to be calling for ways to put unemployed workers back to work and keep them employed. Yet despite this tense economic climate and job outlook, the Missouri Republican Party seems intent on taking rights away from workers and turning back the clock on decades of progress in the area of civil rights while purporting to make the State of Missouri more "pro-business."

These legislative efforts to trample on the rights of workers are currently contained in Missouri Senate Bill 592 and Missouri House Bill 1219. If either bill becomes law, it will alter the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA") and deprive workers of important protections from unlawful job discrimination.

The MHRA prohibits employers from making personnel decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age, or disability. The MHRA also protects employees from harassment based on those same protected factors. These legislative bills propose several changes to the MHRA. First, the bills seeks to change the standard of proof from a "contributing factor" to a "motivating" factor, which when coupled with other proposed legal changes in the bills, would make it more difficult for victimized employees to prove their case and recover damages. This change means that an employer would be allowed to consider a prohibited factor (i.e., race, disability, etc.) in making a personnel decision. Second, the Bill proposes to place an artificially low ceiling on the amount of money an employee can recover, even though there has already been a finding that the employer violated the law. Third, if either bill becomes law in their current form, individual managers and supervisors who unlawfully harass or discriminate against an employee will no longer be held legally responsible for their actions. Finally, for workers who report their employers for violations of law (i.e., "whistleblowers"), the bills make it more difficult for those employees to prove their case, and also impose significant limits on what damages can be recovered.

If either of these bills is passed by the Republican-dominated Missouri Senate or Missouri House of Representatives, it would then be up to Governor Jay Nixon to either enact the bill as a law or veto it.

This issue of trying to strip away workers' rights has become an annual item on the legislative agenda for the Missouri Republican Party, bill sponsor Senator Brad Lager (who is running for Lieutenant Governor of Missouri), the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, and other conservative groups. These proposed impingements on workers' rights continue to be pressed by certain GOP lawmakers and conservative groups under the guise of making Missouri more business friendly, despite the fact that Missouri consistently ranks high nationally for its business-friendly environment. For example, CNBC ranked Missouri as third in the nation for its low cost of doing business. A similar bill was passed in 2011 by the Missouri legislature, but the bill did not become law because it was vetoed by Governor Nixon.

If you are opposed to this erosion of employment discrimination protections, please contact your Missouri State Senator, your member of the Missouri House of Representatives, and/or Governor Nixon and voice your concerns.

Many employees have a valid legal claim for unpaid overtime, but do no pursue such a claim because there is no "proof" of the hours they worked. For example, an employer may allow or require its employees to work "off the clock," such that the employer's time records do not reflect certain time worked by employees. Or an employer may simply fail to keep time records altogether, by neglecting to have employees track their work hours by punching a time clock, swiping a card/badge, logging time on the computer, or submitting a timesheet. What most employees do not realize is that the law cuts them a break in this type of scenario. When an employer's time records are incomplete or inaccurate, the law relaxes an employee's burden to prove the hours he or she worked and essentially makes it more difficult for an employer to challenge an employee's claim for unpaid overtime. Unfortunately for employees, recordkeeping violations occur commonly and frequently.

Federal law, as well as the laws of most states, imposes a requirement on employers to keep and maintain accurate records of the hours worked by its employees. Specifically, the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") states that "[e]very employer subject to [the FLSA] shall make, keep, and preserve such records of the persons employed by him and of the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of employment maintained by him..." See 29 U.S.C. Section 211(c). The records must include certain identifying information about the employee and data about the hours worked and wages earned. The following is a listing of the basic records that must be maintained:

1. Employee's full name and social security number;
2. Address;
3. Birthdate, if younger than 19;
4. Sex and occupation;
5. Time and day of week when employee's workweek begins;
6. Hours worked each day;
7. Total hours worked each workweek;
8. Basis on which employee's wages are paid (e.g., "$9/hour", "$400/week", etc.);
9. Regular hourly pay rate;
10. Total daily or weekly straight time earnings;
11. Total overtime earnings for the workweek;
12. All additions to or deductions from the employee's wages;
13. Total wages paid each pay period; and
14. Date of payment and the pay period covered by the payment.

An employer must retain these records for at least three years. For more information about an employer's recordkeeping obligations, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued the following fact sheet.

So what are the consequences for an employer who fails to meet these recordkeeping requirements? That issue was the subject of a recent federal court case, Chen v. Century Buffet and Restaurant. The Chen case involved a pay dispute in which a group of restaurant employees alleged that the restaurant failed to pay them minimum wage and proper overtime, and unlawfully withheld their tips, in violation of the FLSA and state law.

One core issue in the Chen case was the legal effect of the restaurant's failure to keep and maintain accurate records of the hours worked by its employees. The Court referred to U.S. Supreme Court precedent that "an employee should not be penalized and employer benefitted by the employer's failure to comply with its duty to maintain accurate records." Such a failure by an employer necessitates applying a burden shifting analysis to mitigate against making an employee's burden of proof an impossible one. If the employer's records are incomplete or inaccurate, an employee satisfies the burden of proof if he or she produces enough evidence to permit a court to make a "fair and reasonable" inference that the employee performed work for which he or she received improper compensation. Once satisfied, the burden shifts to the employer, who must provide evidence that sets forth the "precise amount of work performed" or that otherwise "negatives the reasonableness of the inference to be drawn from the employee's evidence." If the employer cannot satisfy its burden, a court may then award an employee damages, even though "the result may only be approximate."

In the Chen case, the plaintiffs testified that they regularly worked 11 to 12 hour days six days per week, totaling a minimum of 68 hours worked weekly, and that they never received overtime pay for this work. This evidence was sufficient to meet the employees' initial burden of proving hours worked. The burden then shifted to the restaurant, and the Court found that the restaurant did not come forward with the accurate and detailed records needed to defeat the inference, which a reasonable trier of fact may draw from the employees' evidence. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the employees' on the merits of their claims.

The Chen case holds valuable lessons for both employees and employers. Employers should keep accurate records of the time worked by employees, as an employer is likely to lose a wage lawsuit in absence of such records. Employees should not be hesitant to assert a legal claim for unpaid wages simply because there is inadequate documentary "proof" of the hours worked. The law cuts employees a break in that situation, such that an employee's general recollection of hours worked--via his or her own testimony--is sufficient proof.

If you believe you may have a legal claim for unpaid minimum wage or unpaid overtime, or if you want to know more about your rights, you should contact a Missouri overtime lawyer.

On January 4, 2012, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri overtime law firm, working in connection with Weinhaus & Potashnick, filed a class action overtime lawsuit against St. Louis-based cable provider, Charter Communications. To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a class of telephone customer service representatives ("CSRs") at a call center in St. Louis, alleges that Charter violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri law by failing to pay CSRs for time they spent working "off the clock" on a daily basis before and after their designated shifts. Specifically, the CSRs claim that they spent work time booting up their computers and logging in to various computer programs and applications to be ready to begin taking calls, and that these work activities occurred before their paid shift began. Also, the CSRs claim that they spent work time logging out of computer programs and powering down their computers, and that these work activities occurred after their paid shift ended. Since CSRs consistently work 40 or more hours per week, the unpaid work time of the CSRs consists of unpaid overtime. In the lawsuit, the CSRs seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In the current economy, employers allowing or requiring employees to work "off the clock" and without compensation is, unfortunately, a common problem, especially for telephone representatives working at call centers. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a fact sheet noting the common wage law violations by employers who operate call centers.

If you employer permits or requires you to engage in work while you are "off the clock," you may be entitled to additional pay under the law. If you wish to assert a claim or better understand your rights to fair pay, you should contact a Missouri overtime lawyer.

As indicated in a blog post in September 2011, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri overtime law firm, working in connection with Weinhaus & Potashnick, previously filed a class action lawsuit against St. Louis-based U.S. Auto Protection and U.S. Auto Warranty to recover unpaid overtime for a group of sales representatives. At relevant times, U.S. Auto Protection was in the business of selling extended automobile warranties (also known as vehicle service contracts). Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are certain individual owners/managers of U.S. Auto Protection, including but not limited to Ray Vinson, Jr., the owner of Vinson Mortgage Group.

In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs allege that they were unlawfully denied overtime pay, in violation of federal and Missouri law. Early in the litigation, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify the case as a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to Order the Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with a list of all class members who worked as pre-screeners (set-up employees) or closers at U.S. Auto Protection within the last three years, and to allow Plaintiffs to send out notice to the class advising them of their rights to opt-in to the lawsuit and assert a claim for unpaid overtime.

On December 23, 2011, the Honorable Judge Nanette Baker, with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification. The Judge ordered a deadline of January 22, 2012 for Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with a list of all persons (and their contact information) who performed work for Defendants as a pre-screener (set-up employee) or closer. Once the Defendants produce the list of class members, then class members will be contacted and provided with the class notice and consent form.

Once the class notice and consent form is sent out to the class, the class members will have a designated period of time to opt-in to the lawsuit and assert a claim for unpaid overtime. Any class member may opt-in by providing Plaintiffs' counsel, Riggan Law Firm, LLC, with a signed copy of the consent form, which will be filed with the Court.

If you believe your rights to overtime pay have been violated, or if you want to learn more about your rights, you should contact a Missouri overtime lawyer.

On November 28, 2011, an Illinois federal judge denied Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution Inc.'s ("BF") attempt to dismiss or transfer a putative class action suit claiming that BF wrongly denied overtime pay and other compensation to its employees by misclassifying them as "independent contractors." Bimbo Bakeries own brands such as Entenmann's, Colonial Bread, Boboli, and Sara Lee.

Steven Bell, the suit's lead plaintiff, alleges that he was denied a wide range of benefits--including health insurance, life insurance, vacation, and holiday pay--as a result his independent contractor status. Additionally, as independent contractors are not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Mr. Bell alleges he was unlawfully denied overtime pay. When employees--but not independent contractors--work more than forty hours in a week, the FLSA entitles them to time-and-half pay for these additional hours. Mr. Bell also cites Illinois wage and hour violations.

Employers frequently misclassify their employees in an effort to shirk their legal responsibilities for employees regarding the provision of wages, unemployment compensation, workers' compensation, and payroll taxes. However, if a worker meets the legal test for being an employee (as opposed to an independent contractor), then his or her employer must comply with all applicable legal requirements for treating that worker as an employee, regardless of whether the employer refers to the worker as an "employee." Bell's complaint maintains that, in this case, "[o]ther than paying [employees] as independent contractors and depriving them of employee benefits, [Bimbo Foods] treats them as employees."

BF attempted to persuade U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang to dismiss or transfer the lawsuit because there are two other pending lawsuits, one in Pennsylvania and one in North Carolina, which were filed against BF before Mr. Bell's case and allege similar legal violations. Judge Chang acknowledged that the two suits filed prior to Mr. Bell's complaint were similar, and that all three pending actions are seeking to assert a collective action under the FLSA and relevant state laws. However, as Judge Chang explained, Mr. Bell's case should not be dismissed "merely because someone else is pursuing a FLSA claim against BF in another district." Further, the Court found that there were differences between the three lawsuits since each complaint alleges a violation of different state wage laws. And, since it was not "[absolutely clear] whether the dismissal of [Mr. Bell's] Illinois state law claim [would] cause prejudice...or adversely affect [Mr. Bell]," Judge Chang denied BF's motion to dismiss.

BF also argued that, as an alternative to dismissal, the case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where a prior case was filed. In order to show that a transfer is warranted, the moving party (here, BF) must establish that Pennsylvania would be a more convenient forum for the litigation. The Court noted that BF put forward no arguments relating to this issue, and therefore denied BF's motion to transfer.

The Court found that, even if there is overlap between Mr. Bell's suit and the other two cases, the Seventh Circuit favors staying a later-filed case rather than dismissing it. The option of staying Mr. Bell's case--which Mr. Bell has agreed to--would allow Mr. Bell to join the Pennsylvania case. Although, at this time it remains to be seen whether or not the Pennsylvania case will survive a dismissal motion from BF. If the motion to dismiss that case is granted, or if Mr. Bell decides not to opt-in to that case, then Mr. Bell's case should proceed, said Judge Chang. This issue is to be addressed with the parties at a hearing on November 29, 2011.

If you are treated as an independent contractor, you may be legally entitled to additional wages and/or other compensation. For more information, contact a Missouri overtime attorney.

In late November 2011, two Steak 'n Shake employees filed suit in a Georgia federal court against the Stake 'n Shake restaurant chain. Stake 'n Shake has nearly 500 locations in 22 states and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Biglari Holdings, Inc.

Justin Beecher and Priscilla Cain filed the suit. They are current Steak 'n Shake employees, working as servers and server trainers at one of the chain's Georgia locations. In the suit, they accuse the restaurant chain's managers of collaborating with store management to alter electronic records in order to deny employees minimum wage and overtime pay. According to the complaint, this resulted in several ongoing violations of the federal eligible employees at least $7.25 per hour. When eligible employees work more than forty hours in a week, the FLSA entitles them to time-and-half pay for the extra hours.

In the suit, the employees allege a management scheme to alter electronic records in the company's computer system. According to the complaint, Steak 'n Shake's computers keep track of weekly hours worked and customer tips received. To avoid paying minimum wage, management allegedly increased the recorded amount of customer tips over what the employees actually received. This decreased the "minimum wage differential"--the difference between tips and minimum wage--that employers are responsible for paying under the minimum wage requirements of the FLSA.

To avoid paying overtime, management allegedly altered the computer record of employees' clock-in and clock-out times to reflect fewer hours worked. The complaint indicates that overtime work was a regular occurrence, so this practice may have resulted in substantial lost wages over time.

According to the employees, the alterations of computer records left a trail of evidence. The complaint states that all of the changes were recorded in an audit report compiled by Steak 'n Shake's timekeeping software. Additionally, the complaint alleges that numerous e-mails between company managers discussed the planned computer alterations and their goal of depriving the employees of their rightful pay.

The suit, filed as a putative class action, seeks to represent all hourly employees of any Steak 'n Shake location who were denied minimum wage or overtime compensation since November 2008. The stakes of the suit are expected to rise as current and former Steak 'n Shake employees opt into the litigation.

The employees desire a declaration that Steak 'n Shake's pay practices violated the law, and an order that Steak 'n Shake to pay the employees back wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees.

If you believe your rights to fair pay have been violated, or if you want to learn more about your rights, you should contact a Missouri wage and hour attorney.

Riggan Law Firm, LLC, a Missouri employment law firm, working in connection with Weinhaus & Potashnick, has filed a racial harassment lawsuit against Panera, LLC, the St. Louis-based company that owns and operates the well-known Saint Louis Bread Company restaurants. The Plaintiffs are a group of current and former Panera employees who worked at the Saint Louis Bread Company restaurant in Florissant, Missouri. The Plaintiffs allege that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment.

The lawsuit alleges an enormous amount of racially harassing conduct by both managers and non-managers of Panera. The Plaintiffs claim that they were called names such as "monkey," "black ass," "Aunt Jemimah," "ghetto," "black bitch," "fucking black people," "lazy black motherfuckers," "dumb, stupid fucking nigger bitch," "boy," "oreo," "animals," "brotha," and "sistah." According to the lawsuit, a Panera manager repeatedly told black employees to not bother seeking management positions because Panera is "racist" and "does not promote black employees" and that "this is a white person's world; black people are just trying to come up in it."

In addition to racist conduct directed to Panera employees, the lawsuit alleges that Panera managers made racist comments directed to customers of Saint Louis Bread Company. For example, according to the lawsuit, one Panera manager said about an African-American customer, "Her ghetto ass shouldn't be here if she doesn't know how to order a 'You-Pick-Two.'" It is also alleged that a Panera manager referred to African-American customers as a "broke black asses" and "fucking black people."

According to the lawsuit, African-American employees have made numerous complaints to Panera management about racial harassment, yet Panera has done nothing to investigate the allegations or correct the racially hostile work environment.

To read a copy of the lawsuit, click here.

If you have been subjected to racially harassing conduct in the workplace, you should contact a St. Louis employment lawyer.