- Whistleblower Laws
- Medicare and Medicaid Fraud
- Employment Agreements
- Employment Background checks
- Sexual Harassment and/or Sexual Discrimination in the Workplace
- Age Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Work Breaks for Nursing Mothers
- Discrimination Based on Language and Accent, National origin, Race or Color, and/or Religion
- Discrimination Based on Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation
Whistle Blower Laws
An employer’s manager fires employee about his belief that the company was doing something
illegal. What are the consequences?
An employee can report illegal acts committed by his or her employer. Such an employee or “whistleblower”
must have a “reasonable belief” that what he or she will disclose is truly a violation of law, rule, or regulation,
gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or pose a substantial and specific danger to
public health or safety. An employee must be careful to not report unfounded violations.
An employer cannot fire or retaliate against an employee for reporting the employer’s wrongdoing, or for
confronting the employer or testifying against the employer in an administrative or court proceeding.
Whistleblowers may receive compensation such as double back pay, special damages, and legal fees.
However, time limits apply to take legal action against an employer who has retaliated. Depending on
applicable federal or state law, in some cases, the time limit can only be 30 days from the date of the
employer’s offense. It is important that both parties seek the advice of counsel as soon as possible after this
For more information, see the following blog articles: Whistleblower Laws, In a Nutshell; Whistleblower Protection Act; and The False Claims Act and Qui Tam Actions.
Medicare and Medicaid Fraud
An employee at a doctor’s office believes she was asked to enter a Medicare code for a procedure
that she thinks was not the exact one administered to the patient, based on the patient’s medical
record. Is this fraud? Should it be reported?
It may be fraud, but this evaluation must be made based on the facts of the situation. Knowingly billing for
services other than the service actually provided is fraud. Doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, laboratories,
pharmacies, goods providers, home-based health care agencies who receive Medicare and Medicaid funds, as
well as those who receive funds from government health insurance programs (such as Affordable Care Act and
military programs like TRICARE), billing companies, among others, are deemed to be government contractors
subject to the federal False Claims Act and other applicable fraud laws. This includes fraud committed on the
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Regarding reporting, a “whistleblower” must have a “reasonable belief” that what he or she will disclose is truly
a violation before reporting it. It is important both sides consult with knowledgeable legal counsel to help make
Subject to applicable law, anyone, including private citizens, can sue on the government’s behalf and
potentially be rewarded with a significant portion of the government’s recovery. False Claims Act laws have
been enacted to enable persons (not only employees of the wrongdoer) to bring qui tam lawsuits in court on
behalf of the state or federal government for actions amounting to fraud against the government. These laws
exist at federal and state levels and provide reporting venues and protections for whistleblowers or “relators.”
For more information about this subject, see the Medicare and Medicaid Fraud and The False Claims Act and
Qui Tam Actions blog articles.
An employer fires an employee without prior notice. Is this legal considering Florida is a “Right to
Work State”? Does the employee deserve severance pay?
In Florida, subject to some limitations, an employment relationship can be terminated “at will”. This means that
an employer can fire the employee, or the employee can walk away from the job, whenever they wish, for any
reason or no reason at all. This applies unless there is a valid employment contract, specifying a definite term
of employment or limiting the reasons for termination.
Florida law does not require an employer to provide severance pay upon employee termination unless this is
specified under an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement.
The common law doctrine of employment-at- will is sometimes confused with the term “right to work”. While “at
will” refers to the right to terminate the employment relationship, “right to work” refers to the right of a person to
work without being compelled to become a member of a labor union.
For more information, see the blog articles: Employment-at- Will and Wrongful Termination in Florida; and
Employment Severance Agreements.
Employment Background Checks
A potential employee is asked to give permission so that the employer can check his credit, criminal
background, medical records, and run a drug test. Can employers do this?
An employer can perform background checks of job applicants and employees under certain conditions. The
access to (and use of) a job applicant’s background information is regulated by federal and state laws.
Employers must secure the individual’s (applicant or employee) written permission prior to obtaining a
background check for employment purposes. In most cases, employers may access and use information only if
it is relevant to the job, and although they may use the information to make a hiring decision, they may not
illegally discriminate based on the information obtained. Florida state law limits the use of arrest and conviction
records by employers for making employment decisions.
In addition, under federal and state law, employers may not request applicant or employee medical records
and may inquire solely about the applicant’s ability to perform specific job duties. In Florida, an employer may
not use HIV/AIDS as a basis for employment decisions (unless there is a legitimate occupational qualification).
Florida law also prohibits mandatory sickle-cell trait testing as a requirement for employment, and it also bans
employment discrimination on the basis of a person having the sickle-cell trait.
Before a contingent offer is made, some pre-employment questions regarding illegal drugs and alcohol use are
allowed, such as whether an applicant drinks alcohol or whether he or she is currently using drugs illegally.
However, the employer may not ask a job applicant whether he or she is an alcoholic or drug abuser, or about
their participation in a rehabilitation program.
For more information, see the blog articles: Employment Background Checks; Employment Criminal
Background Checks; and Drugs and Alcohol in the Workplace.
Sexual Harassment and/or Sexual Discrimination in the Workplace
When an employee asks her manager for an increase in pay, he said he would consider it if she went
on a date with him. His boss does not do anything about it and actually thinks “it’s cute” that her
manager “has a crush”. What are the consequences?
Sex discrimination in the workplace involves the unfavorable treatment toward a job applicant or employee
because of his or her sex, his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with
people of a certain sex, or for their gender identity, transgender status or sexual orientation. Sex discrimination
may arise in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff,
training, fringe benefits, and other employment settings or conditions.
In addition, sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct that creates a work environment that is intimidating,
hostile, or offensive to reasonable people. This conduct is illegal.
Additionally, the Equal Pay Act (EPA) requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay
for equal work. Their positions do not need to be the same, but they must be substantially equal as measured
by job description (not titles.) EPA applies to all forms of pay beyond salary, and it also extends to benefits,
such as bonuses, life insurance, stock options, profit sharing, expense reimbursements, as well as paid leave,
among other forms of compensation. In addition, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) also makes it
illegal to discriminate based on sex in pay and benefits. Therefore, a victim of pay discrimination on the basis
of gender may have both, a claim under EPA and a claim under Title VII.
In addition to gender, pay discrimination may also occur on the basis of other factors such as race, color,
religion, national origin, age, or disability. This may bring in other applicable laws that prohibit compensation
discrimination on the basis of protected factors.
For more information, see the Sex Discrimination in the Workplace, Unequal Pay, and Sexual Harassment in the Workplace blog articles.
An employee in his 50s feels he keeps getting passed over for promotions. His boss tells him that
the company prefers “new blood”, and the “kids right out of college” have more energy and can work
longer hours. Is this age discrimination?
Age discrimination can occur through a discriminatory employment policy or practice. Under the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is unlawful to discriminate against employees who are 40 years
old or older because of their age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including
hiring, firing, promotion, layoff, compensation, benefits, job assignments, and training. ADEA applies to
employers with 20 or more employees (including federal, state and local governments, employment agencies
and labor organizations.)
For more information, see the Age Discrimination in the Workplace blog article.
A manager discharges an employee after she reveals she has a progressive condition that is
causing partial blindness. What are the consequences?
It depends on the nature of the job, whether the employer is subject to the anti-discrimination requirements
imposed by law, and if so, whether providing accommodations for the employee does not cause the employer
Federal and state laws protect persons with known qualified disabilities by requiring employers to provide them
with reasonable accommodations. These requirements usually apply to employers with 15 or more employees
and are subject to undue hardship by the employer. Local ordinances may impose additional restrictions.
An employer provides a reasonable accommodation by facilitating, for example, special equipment,
scheduling, or work assignments to aid the person in performing their job. The individual who receives the
accommodation must still be qualified to perform the essential functions of the job and meet the normal
For more information, see the Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Disability blog article.
During a job interview, an employer asks if the candidate has any children or is planning to become pregnant anytime soon. Is this allowed? What about denying a current employee a job assignment
because she is pregnant?
Questions during a pre-employment inquiry about an applicant’s pregnancy and medical history of pregnancy
are generally viewed as “non job-related” and pose problems under the Title VII federal anti-discrimination law.
An employer may not discriminate on the basis of pregnancy unless it can prove the job is a “bona fide
occupational qualification” (BFOQ) and the requirement is essential to a particular position or occupation.
Workplace discrimination on the basis of pregnancy involves treating a woman, whether a job applicant or an
employee, unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or
childbirth. Similar to other types of discrimination, pregnancy discrimination may arise in any aspect of
employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and
other employment setting or condition.
For more information, see the Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy blog article.
Work Breaks for Nursing Mothers
An employee recently gave birth and needs time to express milk at work. Her boss says she can only do this if she “gets someone else” to replace her at the front desk while she expresses milk and says her job must be her first priority. Is this legal?
Nursing mothers have the right to express milk in the woworkrkplace as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the federal law establishing and regulating labor standards. The FLSA does not require covered
employers to give breaks to employees for meals, rest, or to express milk. Florida law does not impose such a
However, many employers voluntarily provide breaks to employees as a matter of policy or contract, to rest,
eat, and to enhance their overall working environment. Although employers may modify or revoke their break
policies at any time, if they have them, they must apply them evenly to all employees.
Therefore, if an employer has a break policy in place, nursing mothers can use the provided breaks to express
milk. If the employer does not have a break policy in place, the employer may deduct time taken by an
employee for the purpose of expressing breast milk at work.
That said, courts have found discriminatory conduct when employers discharged workers for expressing milk in
the workplace. It’s important both sides seek legal counsel to help assess if there has been discriminatory
While the FLSA does not require employers to provide meal or rest breaks, it does require employees to be
paid for “hours worked.” Under the FLSA, meal breaks are generally not considered compensable hours
worked, as long as the employee is fully relieved from work for the purpose of eating a meal. Therefore, if a
covered employee must work during a meal break, this time must be compensated.
For additional information, see the Nursing Mothers in the Workplace; and Work Breaks blog articles.
Discrimination Based on Language and Accent, National origin, Race or Color, and/or Religion
An employee feels he was discriminated against for his accent. What are the laws regarding discrimination based on language, national origin, race or color, and/or religion?
Workplace discrimination on the basis of national origin occurs when a job applicant or an employee is treated
unfavorably because he or she is from a particular country or part of the world, because of ethnicity or accent,
surname, or because they appear to be of a certain ethnic background (even if they are not).
Some employers have implemented “English-Only” policies at work prohibiting employees to speak in a foreign
language, even while on break or when speaking with each other about personal matters. However, subject to
narrow exceptions, under federal law “English-Only” policies are presumed to be discriminatory on the basis of
Workplace religious discrimination occurs when a job applicant or an employee is treated unfavorably because
he or she has a certain religious belief or because of personal characteristics associated with such belief (such
as dress or grooming). This type of discrimination may occur in combination with other types of discrimination,
such as race and national origin.
Discrimination is often accompanied by workplace harassment. This conduct becomes illegal when it is based
on a class protected by the law, such as race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age
(40 years old or older), disability, or genetic information. Harassment often occurs in combination with other
types of illegal conduct, such as discrimination. Federal and Florida law offer protections against harassment
Subject to limited exceptions and undue hardship, federal and Florida law make it illegal for an employer with
15 or more employees to discriminate on the basis of religion, national origin, and race, among other factors.
Employers are required to provide adjustments to the work environment to allow the employee to practice his
or her religion, such as: flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, lateral
transfers, and exceptions to dress or grooming rules. Undue hardship is determined on a case-by- case basis.
Isolated incidents of harassment do not rise to the level of illegality unless they are extremely severe. The
conduct must be offensive, be a condition of continued employment, or severe enough to create a work
environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.
Also, the victim does not have to be the person harassed and can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct
of the harasser, such as a witness of the behavior. In addition, an employer may not retaliate against an
employee for reporting illegal or discriminatory conduct (such as discharging or mistreating the employee).
Additionally, under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), no employer may ask applicants about their citizenship status before the applicant
is offered a job. This includes the request of citizenship documentation. In addition, employers may not treat
individuals differently based on citizenship or immigration status. Further, an employer may not exclusively hire
U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation, or government contract.
IRCA also makes it illegal to require more or different documents than those legally acceptable for employment
verification purposes; to refuse to honor the documents the employee offers if they are legally acceptable and
appear genuine; and it prohibits intimidation, coercion, threats, or retaliation against those who file charges or
otherwise cooperate with an investigation, proceeding, or hearing.
Protected persons under IRCA include U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, and the following classes of aliens with
work authorization: permanent residents, refugees, and asylees.
Finally, employers cannot discriminate against job applicants, including undocumented job applicants, on the
basis of protected civil rights factors.
For additional information, see: Harassment in the Workplace; Speak English at Work! Language and Accent
Discrimination; Employment Discrimination on the Basis of National Origin; and Damages in Discrimination
Discrimination Based on Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation
An employee is being harassed at work because she is transgender. She has been asked not to use the female restroom. Her co-workers also frequently laugh at her and–even though it is not her name–they call her “Bruce”, alluding to the former name of Caitlyn Jenner, the famous athlete who recently underwent a transgender transition. She has complained to her manager about the situation and was told to leave if she doesn’t like it there. What are the laws regarding discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation?
Workplace discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation is among the most harmful forms of
discrimination. It consists in the mistreatment of others based on false preconceived notions of gender
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) workers affected by discrimination report having to change
or leave their jobs to avoid mistreatment. Individuals who are victims of employment discrimination based on
sexual orientation or gender identity have legal recourse under federal law as a form of sex discrimination. This
is so, even in states like Florida, where gender identity and sexual orientation are not explicitly protected.
A number of local governments throughout Florida ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, and some others also ban discrimination based on gender identity. And even if state or local laws
do not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will still enforce the Title VII discrimination prohibitions against covered
employers because contrary state law is not a defense to the violation of Title VII and other federal laws
offering higher protection than state law.
Claims for employment discrimination and workplace harassment can arise for actions such as making
offensive or derogatory remarks about a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation.
Employee Discrimination Claims
An employee sues her employer for discrimination and recovers almost $2M within 1 year of her lawsuit. Will her colleagues who work for the same employer and were discriminated in similar ways recover the same amount from their employment discrimination claim? How much time do employees have to file an employment discrimination claim, and how long will it take for the employment discrimination claim to process?
One of the most frequent questions presented to attorneys as part of an employment discrimination case
evaluation is: “How much is my case worth?” The short answer is: “It depends.”
People are often targets of attorney advertisements on television, social media, radio, and even billboards,
sharing their multimillion-dollar success stories. Showcasing a high recovery may set prospective clients’
expectations for similar recoveries. But sometimes these stories may be misleading.
The reality is that each situation is different, and the recovery in every case hinges on distinct variables.
Estimating damages in personal injury cases or medical malpractice is much different than estimating a
recovery for an employment discrimination case. There is guidance based on judicial precedent and regulatory
guidelines, but there is no crystal ball.
Aside from the unique facts of each case, employment discrimination damages are shaped by a diversity of
factors. These include, but are not limited to, the alleged violations, the applicable federal, state, and local
laws, how much time has passed since the discrimination occurred, the defenses presented by the employer,
the behavior of both parties, and whether the suit is brought at an agency level or by individuals, among other
Processing time depends on the nature of the claim and whether the claimant decides to file it at a federal
and/or state level, among other factors. For example, generally, a Florida claimant must file his or her state
claim within 365 calendar days after the discrimination took place. However, claimants wishing to also file at a
federal level must submit their claims within 300 calendar days of the discrimination event. (The time limit to file
a whistleblower claim for employer retaliation in Florida is 60 days.) The Florida Commission for Human
Relations (FCHR), the state agency enforcing anti-discrimination laws, then has 180 days to investigate the
claim. If the agency finds “reasonable cause” to believe that discrimination exists, it will notify the claimant. At
this point, the claimant may bring a civil action for damages, request an administrative hearing, or request
mediation. This process can take months and even years, depending on the dynamic of the claim processing.
Some federal claims require a “Notice of Right to Sue” from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) prior to proceeding in court. For example, claimants who file a charge under Title VII (discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin) or under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must
have a Notice of Right To Sue from the EEOC before they can file a lawsuit in federal court. The EEOC
generally takes about 180 days to resolve a charge, but if the case is complex or involves multiple charges, it
may take longer.
For additional information, see the blog articles: Damages in Employment Discrimination Claims (Parts I and
II); EEOC Claim Processing; and FCHR Claim Processing.
An employer’s computer system is hacked and their employment records, including employees’ social security numbers and health information, may have been compromised. What are an employer’s rights and responsibilities when it comes to employees’ personal data?
In the electronic age, flawed or inexistent company policies, intentional third-party data attacks, and human
error can lead to data breaches resulting in significant information and reputational losses for employers and
employees alike. Employers are required to comply with various federal and state laws when collecting and
managing job applicant and employee information obtained throughout the course of employment. This
includes information gathered from background checks, drug, alcohol and health screenings, as well as
information residing in employer computers, phones, and other information systems. Businesses are also
responsible for the proper collection, security, and privacy of data gathered from customers and other parties,
The different federal and state laws impose penalties for non-compliance, which could overlap, depending on
the nature of the violation. Some provide private causes of action while others do not. At a federal level, for
example, a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for the mishandling of background check
information provides for a private recovery including costs, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. Criminal
sanctions may also be imposed under certain conditions. In addition, penalties may be imposed under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) for the company’s negligent compromise
of health information.
At a state level, for example, the Florida Information Protection Act (FIPA) penalizes an employer’s failure to
provide adequate notice of a data breach to its employees and others whose information has been
compromised. Failure to provide adequate notice of a data breach also violates the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and this triggers civil penalties that may accrue for every day the
employer has failed to notify the affected party. Although FIPA does not provide for private redress, FDUTPA
states that any aggrieved person may bring an action for appropriate relief, which may include actual damages,
attorney’s fees, and costs.
Besides preserving data integrity and privacy, employers must also be concerned with the improper use of
their information systems by employees. This practice leads not only to economic loss, but also to heightened
liability. For example, cyberloafing (employee personal use of their workplace Internet), accessing online
pornography, shopping, gambling, transmitting personal emails or messages, and the use of social media via
the employer’s information technology infrastructure (and sometimes even the employee’s own device) could
impose liability on employers and compromise the health of the business.
In partnership with legal counsel, employers should establish sound workplace data protection and privacy
policies and communicate these to employees. Such policies will enable the employers and their employees to
efficiently and legally balance the competing interests of privacy, information protection, and a technology-
driven environment. Once the policies are established, they should be enforced evenly with all employees.
For additional information, see the blog article: Data Privacy and Security in the Workplace.
Non compete Agreements
I am a doctor who signed a non-compete agreement with a medical practice about three years ago. I have been offered a work-partnership opportunity about an hour away from my current employer. My employer told me that I couldn’t accept the new position because it would breach my current non-compete agreement. Is this true?
It depends on the terms of the agreement, among other factors. To protect their business and goodwill, employers can legally require employees to sign non-compete agreements. While the motivation behind this type of contract may seem reasonable, the terms of a non-compete agreement can be overreaching and may infringe on the employee’s right to earn a living once the employer-employee relationship comes to an end. This is one of the reasons why courts carefully scrutinize these contracts when they are at the center of a legal dispute.
Courts look at the law and the facts of each individual case to determine whether a non-compete agreement is reasonable in in time, area, and line of business. Typically, an agreement that is very broad will be held invalid. In Florida, any employment restraint 6 months or less in duration is presumed reasonable, and any restraint more than 2 years in duration is presumed unreasonable. For general contracts predicated on the protection of trade secrets, the timeframe increases.
In the medical profession, from a public policy perspective, the American Medical Association has openly expressed its opposition to non-compete agreements because of their effect in restricting competition, disrupting continuity of care, and potentially depriving the public of medical services. However, these agreements are still commonly required from doctors. Nevertheless, courts have invalidated them, for example, because a patient’s right to receive continued care from his physician outweighed a medical center’s business interest, or when medical patients are forced to travel excessive distances to receive care (i.e., the patients reside in a market segment far away from the employer.)
Consultation with legal counsel will provide a tailored assessment to your particular situation.
For additional information, see the blog article: Employee Non-Compete Agreements.
Independent Contractor vs Employee
I am a manager looking to hire an independent contractor to help with a project. What are the differences between an “employee” and “independent contractor” when it comes to unemployment benefits and worker’s compensation claims?
In Florida, the classification of whether a worker is an “employee” or an “independent contractor” for the
purposes of qualifying for unemployment benefits or “Reemployment Assistance” is based on factors laid out
by common law, as dictated by Chapter 443 F.S. These factors are weighed in the context of the industry, work
relationship, the type of work performed, and other circumstances.
The Florida common law factors consider the level of control the employer exercises over the worker to make
the determination of whether the worker is an “employee” who can qualify for unemployment insurance. The
Florida common law factors are separate from those laid out under the Florida Worker’s Compensation
Statute, which provides a broader definition of “employee”.
For example, the Florida Workers’ Compensation Statute's broad definition of the term “employee” may include
independent contractors who work in the construction industry. An “employee” under the statute includes all
subcontractors being paid by a construction contractor (unless they elected exemption under the statute) or
who have otherwise secured the payment of compensation coverage for work performed by or as a
For more information, see the blog articles: Independent Contractor or Employee? (Part 3): The Florida
Common Law Perspective; Independent Contractor or Employee? (Part 4): The Florida Workers’ Compensation Perspective; and Unemployment Benefits
Exempt vs Non-Exempt Employees
A full-time computer tech working for a large U.S. transportation company has been working overtime for quite some time without receiving pay for additional time worked. Her manager tells her the company won’t pay for overtime because she is an “exempt” employee. Is this true?
Whether an employee is “exempt” or not depends on various factors laid out by law. The overtime
requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) apply to employees working for covered “enterprises”
and also covers individual employees whose work involves them in “interstate commerce,” as defined under
the law. It looks like the FLSA may cover this company and the employee as an individual, because the nature
of the transportation business and her computer-related work likely affect interstate commerce.
The FLSA minimum wage and overtime requirements apply differently to employees of covered enterprises,
depending on whether they are classified as non-exempt or exempt. Under the FLSA, an employee is
considered exempt if the employee is paid a salary (not paid on an hourly basis); the salary is at least $455 per
week; and the employee performs the duties of an exempt employee as described by the FLSA, generally
requiring higher learning and supervisory responsibility. In addition, an employee in certain computer-related
occupations under the FLSA is exempt if paid either on a salary or fee basis of at least $455 per week, or on
an hourly basis of at least $27.63 for each hour worked. This is calculated on a 40 hour-per- week basis.
If the employee wishes to file a claim, Florida follows the FLSA standards for minimum wage and overtime
claims. Claims may be submitted to the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security for an
investigation. A claimant may also file a lawsuit in court to recover wages. All federal claims must be filed with
the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which has regional offices across Florida. There are time limits for filing,
and these are different for federal and state claims, from 2 to 5 years from the date of the violation (or its
discovery by the employee), depending on the situation and the claim-filing venue.
For additional information, see the blog articles: Wage and Hour Claims; FLSA “Enterprise” and “Individual” Coverage; Exempt or Non-Exempt? and Overtime Pay
A family-owned restaurant employs three workers. The chef is paid hourly, earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour of work. A co-worker tells the manager everyone should be getting paid more. Is this true?
It may be true. Subject to some exceptions, under the Florida Minimum Wage Act, employers must pay
employees the hourly state minimum wage amount for all “hours worked” in Florida.
For all other minimum wage provisions, Florida follows the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The FLSA
minimum wage rules apply only to covered employers and covered employees who are non-exempt. In this
case, based on the nature of the business of the employer and the work, the three employees are likely
covered and non-exempt, which means they should get paid the required minimum wage under Florida law
unless they fall under one of the exceptions. For example, new employees under 20 years old can be paid a
“training wage” of $4.25 for the first 90 days of employment.
The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) calculates the Florida minimum wage annually based
on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), effective the first of January. The 2017 Florida minimum wage is $8.10 per
hour, higher than the federal minimum wage of $7.25.
Both the employees and employer should contact an attorney to assess their particular situation and determine
whether there is a claim for back pay.
For additional information, see the Minimum Wage blog article.
Child Labor, Interns and Volunteers
A manager at a nonprofit spay and neuter clinic is asking her employees to stay after hours to “volunteer” time beyond their job duties. She has also asked a 16-year- old aspiring veterinarian to be an unpaid intern at the nonprofit. Part of the intern’s duties will be helping to prepare for the organization’s yearly fundraiser and will involve work that needs to be done during the week, including during school hours. Are the manager’s requests of her employees legal? And does the unpaid intern scenario violate child labor laws?
The Florida Minimum Wage Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), require employers to pay
covered employees for all “hours worked”. Subject to some limitations, individuals who volunteer or donate
their time to public agencies and nonprofit organizations are not considered employees of the organization and
do not need to be paid for their work.
However, the FLSA restricts employees of a nonprofit organization from donating services that are the same
as, similar, or related to their regular job duties in their employer organization. In this situation, if the manager
requires her employees to spend additional time on the premises after work to “volunteer,” the time spent is
considered working time. But if the time is spent voluntarily in activities outside of the employee’s normal
working hours, then this time is not considered hours worked.
Regarding the unpaid intern, since the individual is 16 years old, there are some restrictions on the student’s
working, interning and/or volunteering status.
The FLSA fixes the minimum age for work during school hours, performing certain jobs after school, and
places restraints on work considered hazardous. Florida’s Child Labor Law also restricts the employment of
minors, sometimes more than federal law. Once a worker reaches the age of 18, child labor laws do not restrict
The FLSA does not limit the hours worked for minors who are at least 16 years old. However, Florida law
provides restrictions. For example, when school is scheduled on the next day, minors 16 and 17 years of age
may not work before 6:30 a.m. or after 11:00 p.m., or for more than eight hours per day. They may not be
employed to work more than 30 hours per week when school is in session. In addition, they may not work
during school hours (on any school day), except when they participate in a career education program. There is
no hour limitation when school is out of session, such as summer, spring break, or winter break.
Often, employers offer unpaid internships, usually to students or trainees. However, there are restrictions as to
when employers can offer unpaid internships. Under the FLSA, an internship can be unpaid only if the
employer is a nonprofit organization, if the intern earns formal college credit on the job, or if the employer
provides training and learning opportunities to the intern.
There are some specific requirements for the “unpaid trainee exception,” among them that the trainee cannot
displace an existing employee, and that the trainee is the primary beneficiary of the experience, not the
Therefore, in this situation, if the 16-year- old is not working under hazardous conditions, she could be an
unpaid intern if the nonprofit carefully followed the requirements. However, the charitable event preparation
requiring her time during school days and hours probably does not qualify as a career education program
(unless formally established as such).
She would be fine working for pay at the nonprofit, even after school hours during the week, as long as she
does not work after 11 p.m. during days in which she has school the next day.
For more information, see the blog articles: FLSA Enterprise and Individual Coverage, Exempt or Non-Exempt? Employee Classification Under FLSA; Overtime Pay; Hours Worked, Child Labor, Interns and Trainees, and Volunteers.
Family Medical Leave Act
An employee is finalizing the adoption of his 5-year- old son. When he requested time from his employer under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to travel to Africa to finalize the administrative details of the adoption, the employer denied it, stating that the FMLA does not apply to preliminary arrangements for adoptions, just when the adopted child arrives in the home. Is the employer correct?
No. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) became effective in 1993 to help balance workplace demands
with specific family and medical needs of the eligible employees of covered employers. Under the FMLA, an
employee may request FMLA leave before the placement of a child for adoption in order to tend to
administrative processing and legal counsel visits. Eligible employees may take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid
leave in a 12-month period for one or more specific reasons. Eligible employees include those who have
worked for an employer with 50 or more employees for at least 12 months and have provided at least 1,250
hours of service to the employer during the 12-month period immediately preceding the leave.
Additionally, the Department of Labor (DOL) has issued clear guidance that its FMLA protections apply to
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) eligible employees. The DOL’s Final Rule issued on
February 25, 2015, and effective on March 27, 2015, amended the regulatory definition of spouse under the
FMLA so that eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages are also able to take FMLA leave. The FMLA’s
definition of spouse expressly includes individuals who are in lawfully recognized same-sex and common law
marriages and marriages that were entered into legally outside of the United States, if they could have been
legally entered into in at least one state in the United States.
For additional information, see the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (Parts 1 and 2) blog articles.
Rights of Military Veterans
After being deployed to Afghanistan a year ago and losing her sight due to an explosion in combat, an employee is told her job is no longer available at her former employer. She asked if they could provide another job, and they said they could not because this would cause them an “undue hardship.” A former co-worker told her that he overheard the managers saying they just did not want to deal with her blindness and other potential issues she may have, like PTSD. What does the law say about this?
A number of federal and state laws provide important job protections for veterans, particularly those who
become disabled while in service. In addition to ensuring their reemployment upon returning from service,
some afforded protections extend to affirmative action allowing the preferential hiring of veterans by covered
employers. In addition, the law protects veterans against discriminatory practices in the workplace.
For example, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) requires
employers to take reasonable efforts to help returning veterans to become qualified for the job they would have
held but for their military service. Employers must also make reasonable efforts to accommodate veterans with
disabilities, whether service-acquired or not, and if they are not qualified for the job due to a disability, the
employer must make reasonable efforts (including providing training or retraining) to help them qualify for an
equivalent job with equivalent seniority, status and pay.
In addition, under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is illegal for an employer to refuse to
hire a veteran because he or she suffers from blindness, among other conditions such as Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD), deafness, partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring the use
of a wheelchair, major depressive disorder, among other disabilities, whether service-connected or not. Under
the ADA, absent undue hardship, job applicants and employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable
accommodations when applying for employment, while performing their jobs, and to enjoy equal benefits and
privileges of employment.
Several other laws apply to protect veterans.
For more information, see the blog article: Employment Rights of Military Veterans.
A manager is interested in her employee and job applicants’ social media activity. She has started asking for social media profile passwords and access to social media posts via the accounts of shared friends. Is this legal?
At least 18 states have passed laws banning employers from requesting the social media logins and
passwords of employees and job applicants, but the attempts to pass similar laws in Florida have failed to
date. At the time of this writing, Florida employers can request job applicants and employees to provide
username and password information to their social media accounts. However, under current federal and state
law, employers may not use the information obtained from these accounts to discriminate against applicants or
employees on the basis of protected factors, such as disabilities, race or color, gender, national origin, religion,
age, or genetic information. In addition, the federal bankruptcy law bans an employer from discriminating
against an individual based on bankruptcy.
That said, an employer must secure lawful access or authorization to employee’s social media information, or
they may risk hefty penalties, including prison. The unauthorized access to private social media information of
an individual is protected under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which requires authorization prior to
access and use of the information. In addition, an employer may not coerce an employee or job applicant into
allowing access to their private social media information.
However, under a particular set of facts, a court recently found that an employer secured proper access to an
employee’s social media account via a co-worker who granted permission to his supervisor to see the
employee’s posts via the co-worker’s social media account.
As a matter of good practice, even when securing lawful access to their employees’ social media information,
employers must refrain from acting adversely against employees for reasons having nothing to do with work,
and especially, they may not discriminate against employees and job applicants based on factors that are
protected by federal, state, and local laws.
For additional information, see the blog articles: Employment and Social Media (Parts 1-3)