Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Are You Paying Your Employees by Commission?
Many retail and service employers try to simplify their payroll obligations by labeling certain employees as “commission” or “commission only.” While federal law permits this practice in some circumstances, the rules are complicated and present many traps for the unwary. We discuss some of these potential pitfalls below, but the bottom line is simple: Employers should approach this practice with caution and must be prepared to substantiate the applicability of the exemption to each employee.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires covered employers to pay employees overtime if they work more than 40 hours in a week, unless the employee falls into a specified exemption. One such exemption is for the commissioned salesperson (not to be confused with the outside salesperson). Where it applies, employers need not pay overtime compensation. The exemption applies to: 1) commissioned employees of retail or service establishments, 2) whose regular rate of pay is over 1.5 times the minimum wage for every hour worked in a workweek in which overtime hours are worked, 3) where over half the employee's compensation for a representative period represents commissions on goods or services. 29 U.S.C. ' 207(i) (Section 7(i)). Unless all three requirements are met or another exemption applies, overtime pay must be paid for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at time and a half the regular rate of pay. Because the regular rate of pay for these employees includes commissions, overtime may be costly. Whether an employee falls within the exemption requires a detailed analysis that must be documented and regularly reevaluated. Mistakes may prove costly, as employers who fail to comply may be liable for damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees.
Rationale Behind the Exemption
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?