The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recently made a surprising change in its interpretation of the daily and weekly overtime requirements for manufacturers. Employers may be able to obtain a waiver from complying with this new interpretation. BOLI will consider waivers of the daily overtime requirement, renewable on an annual basis, provided a manufacturer is able to demonstrate that (1) it has established regular work shifts in excess of 10 hours per day with the agreement of its employees; (2) the work schedule has not adversely affected the health and safety of the workers; (3) the workers receive rest and meal periods as required by law; and (4) the employer makes reasonable accommodations for employees who are unable to work over 10 hours in a day because of a health issue or physical disability. A copy of the waiver application is available for employers.
Recommended Reading
U.S. Supreme Court Rules On "Cat’s Paw" Theory
On March 1, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, an ultimate employment decision.
Seventh Circuit Exempts Interstate School Bus Drivers From FLSA Overtime Requirements
Last month, in Almy v. Kickert School Bus Line, Inc., No. 13-1273 (July 16, 2013), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Second, Third, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits,in finding that school bus drivers who transport students across state lines fall within the “motor-carrier exemption” to the Fair Labor Standards…..
Supreme Court Upholds Federal Health Care Reform
On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated opinion deciding the constitutionality of the federal health care overhaul known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court upheld the entire Act except a provision related to expanding eligibility for Medicaid. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, construed the individual mandate as an option to have “minimum essential coverage” or to pay a tax and upheld the provision on the basis that the Act merely uses a tax penalty as a means of incentivizing an individual to have minimum essential coverage.