Photo of Erin Fowler

Erin is an associate at Franczek P.C. Her practice focuses on counseling and representing employers on various employment and labor issues. Her labor experience includes preparing and representing clients during arbitration and unfair labor practice charge hearings, while her employment practice includes counseling employers on federal, state, and local paid and unpaid sick leave laws, as well as training employees on topics such as developing a respectful workplace.

Erin defends employers against discrimination cases filed in a variety of forums, including state and federal court, the Illinois Department of Human Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Chicago Commission on Human Relations. She has also defended employers before the Illinois Department of Labor and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board.

On September 8, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down portions of a January 2020 Final Rule issued by the Department of Labor. The Final Rule provided a new test for determining whether an entity is a joint employer with another entity under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Final Rule, which became effective in March of 2020, severely limited the situations in which an entity can be considered a joint employer and held liable for violations of the FLSA in a “vertical” joint employment relationship. A vertical joint employment relationship is the variety of joint employment that exists when there is some sort of intermediary, like a staffing firm, PLA, or temp agency between the employee and the employer that ultimately benefits from the employee’s work. We discussed “horizontal” joint employment in a prior post.

Several states, including Illinois, filed suit challenging the Final Rule’s legality with respect to the Final Rule’s changes to the vertical joint employment determination. Historically, courts and the DOL have made clear that control over an individual’s employment is not the dispositive factor in determining whether an entity is a joint employer with another entity. Instead, whether a joint employment relationship exists depends upon whether the employee in question is economically dependent upon the potential joint employer.


Continue Reading DOL’s Joint Employer Test Ruled Illegal

In Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2020-4, issued June 26, 2020, the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, recognized a number of ways an employee can establish eligibility for Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) leave based on the closure of a summer camp or program that the employee claims would have been the place of care for the employee’s child over the summer. In addition to proof of actual enrollment or application to a camp or program, if an employee’s child attended a camp or program in the summer of 2018 or 2019 and the child remains eligible for the camp or program for Summer 2020, that may be sufficient.  Likewise, if an employee’s child is accepted to a waitlist pending the reopening of a camp or program or the reopening of the camp or program’s registration process, that, too, may be sufficient. Although the DOL states that mere interest in a summer camp or program is not enough, this broad interpretation opens the door to many new requests for FFCRA leave for employees. Employers should continue to obtain as much information as possible from an employee regarding the reasons the employee considers a summer camp or program to be the provider for the employee’s child. Consider consulting with legal counsel if you receive a request where there is a question as to whether the provider is in fact the child’s provider, including requests related to a summer camp for which no application, acceptance, attendance, or enrollment has occurred.

Continue Reading DOL Broadly Defines When a Summer Camp or Program is a Child’s Place of Care for FFCRA Leave

For regular readers of this blog, you know that my colleague, Tracey Truesdale, gave you some tips for properly paying employees in the event of a pandemic. That was on February 26, 2020. Since then, we’ve heard of employers sending entire offices of employees home to telecommute, restricting travel, and cancelling social events in reaction

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Labor issued its final rule concerning overtime exemptions. The rule increases the salary threshold for employees exempt under the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions (the “white collar exemptions”) from $455 per week (or $23,660 annually) to $684 per week (or $35,568 annually). Additional changes include:

  • Increasing the total annual compensation threshold for highly compensated employees (“HCEs”) from $100,000 per year to $107,432 per year;
  • Permitting employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10% of the increase salary threshold; and
  • Committing to updating the salary threshold more regularly.

The new rule is set to take effect on January 1, 2020 and increase the number of overtime-eligible employees by 1.3 million. No changes to the duties test have been made.


Continue Reading New Minimum Salary For Exempt Employees Takes Effect January 1, 2020

US-Department-of-Labor-logo.jpgYesterday, a group of 21 states filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas challenging the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule, which is set to take effect on December 1, 2016.  The group challenging the rule is led by Texas and Nevada, and includes the following states:  Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin. The lawsuit names as Defendants the DOL and its Wage and Hour Division, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez, and Wage and Hour Administrator David Weil, and Assistant Administrator for Policy Mary Ziegler.

As most know by now, in May 2016, the DOL issued its final rule establishing a new minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This new threshold of $913 per week ($47,476 annualized) more than doubles the current minimum weekly salary threshold of $455 per week ($23,660 annualized), and is scheduled to increase every three years.


Continue Reading 21 States File Suit Challenging the DOL’s New Overtime Rule

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro case, that many hoped would resolve the issue as to whether Service Advisors at auto dealerships are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  As we reported back in January 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition filed by an auto dealership, Encino Motorcars, challenging a Ninth Circuit decision holding that Service Advisors were not exempt from overtime pay requirements.  Encino asked that the Court “restore uniformity” in legal precedent and hold that Service Advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements.  Auto dealers were hoping that the Supreme Court would bring certainty to this issue and follow prior decisions from the Fourth and Fifth Circuits holding that Service Advisors are salespeople exempt from overtime, instead of following the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision.  Although the Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court’s opinion leaves the issue open to further consideration.
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Shoots Down DOL Regulations, But Declines To Rule Whether Service Advisors are Exempt From Overtime Pay Requirements

Recently, Uber announced that it agreed to pay drivers in California and Massachusetts $100 million in an effort to ensure that the drivers are considered independent contractors, not employees. In just six years, Uber has expanded from its base in San Francisco to over 300 cities across the world. With more than 450,000 drivers using the company’s app each month in the U.S. alone, a determination that its drivers were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees could be extremely costly for the ride-sharing company, currently valued at $62.5 billion.

The debate concerning the correct classification for these freelancing drivers has grown in recent months, with drivers in states including Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Oregon claiming that they are employees of Uber entitled to the protection of federal and state employment and labor laws. In response to these claims, Uber argues that it simply connects independent drivers with passengers and has no other form of control over drivers who use its service.


Continue Reading Uber Willing to Pay $100 Million to Keep Its Drivers Classified as Independent Contractors

In an interesting turn of events and what I’m sure will be gratifying for some employers, the Department of Labor has agreed to pay Gate Guard Services $1.5 million to settle claims involving the DOL’s overly aggressive and bad faith tactics in investigating whether Gate Guard’s gate attendants were improperly classified as independent contractors under