In Panos v. Timco Engine Center, the court considered the applicability of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA) to an employee who works outside of North Carolina.  Plaintiff had brought an action based on the company’s failure to pay severance as required by his employment contract.  Although the company was based in North Carolina, and the plaintiff’s employment contract specificed that North Carolina law applied, the plaintiff primarily worked in Michigan and spent at most 18 days working in North Carolina.  The most direct contact was that plaintiff participated in a daily conference call with the company’s North Carolina office.  The court held that these daily phone calls were not enough to bring the plaintiff within the protection of the NCWHA.

In Blow v. DSM Pharmaceuticals, the court rejected the plaintiff’s Woodson claim based on the pleadings.  Generally, under the workers’ compensation system, an employee who is injured at work cannot bring a personal injury claim in state court against his employer — instead the employee has to file a workers’ compensation claim and proceed through the Industrial Commission.  This is the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.C.G.S. 97-10.1.  The Woodson case, however, recognized an exception to this rule when “an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct.”  Such Woodson claims can be brought in cases of egregious, intentional employer misconduct. Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Industrial Commission, Labor and Employment, NC Court of Appeals, North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, Personal Injuries, Severance, Wage and Hour, Woodson Claim, Workers' Compensation

In Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court, concluding instead that the plaintiff was not exempt from being paid overtime as an administrative employee.  Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), one of the “white collar” exceptions to the overtime requirement is the administrative exception.  An administrative position is “office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers” that involves a significant amount of independant discretion.

In this case, the plaintiff was a racing official for a casino and live horse racing facility.  The trial court had found the plaintiff to be an administrative employee because his position was indispensable to the business.  The Fourth Circuit found otherwise, as the plaintiff’s position did not involve the company’s general business operations, but rather was similar to positions on a manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment.  Therefore, he was entitled to overtime.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, FLSA, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Overtime, Wage and Hour, White Collar Exceptions