Search form

Connecticut Wage Regulations Bar Fluctuating Workweek Method in Calculating Overtime Pay for Retail Workers

By David R. Golder and Alexa M. Farmer
  • September 5, 2017

State wage regulations promulgated by the Connecticut Department of Labor prohibit use of the “fluctuating work week” method of calculating overtime pay for mercantile (retail) employees, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held. Williams v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 326 Conn. 651 (Conn. 2017). The Court was responding to a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) Method

Under federal law, the fluctuating workweek method may be used to calculate overtime pay for employees without a consistent hourly rate of pay, for example, salaried employees whose work hours fluctuate above and below 40 per week or employees who receive commissions.

Using the FWW method, an employee’s “regular rate” of pay is calculated each week by dividing his total weekly pay (including any commissions) by the actual number of hours he worked that week. The “overtime rate” is calculated by multiplying this regular rate by 1.5. For example, if an employee has a weekly salary of $500 and works 50 hours in a given week, his regular rate is $10 per hour ($500/50), and his overtime rate is $15 per hour ($10 x 1.5). Because the employee has received only $10 per hour for each hour worked, he must be paid an additional $5 for each overtime hour to attain the required $15 per hour rate for all hours in excess of 40.

Connecticut Labor Regulations

Just as under federal law, Connecticut General Statute § 31-76c requires that certain employees are entitled to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for overtime hours worked. Interpreting this statute, the state Department of Labor published a wage order establishing that “[w]hen an employee is paid a commission in whole or in part of his earnings, the regularly hourly rate for the purpose of computing overtime shall be determined by dividing the employees total earnings by the number of hours in the usual work week[.]” Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies § 31-62-D4. However, this Wage Order applies only to employees in the “mercantile trade,” which generally has been defined as those employed in the retail sales industry.

“Usual” Workweek Calculation Renders FWW Inapplicable

The Williams plaintiffs were managers at GNC’s retail stores (i.e., were employed in the mercantile trade). They were paid a base weekly salary plus commissions on premium merchandise sold. They also were paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours per week.

In the lawsuit, they claimed that their overtime pay was wrongly calculated using the FWW pay method. They argued Wage Order § 31-62-D4 provides that their pay must be based on how many hours they usually worked, as opposed to the number of hours they actually worked in a particular week.

On a certified question from the federal district court, the Connecticut Supreme Court agreed that the FWW pay method was not permitted with respect to retail employees subject to the Wage Order. The Court interpreted the plain meaning of the phrase “usual work week” to refer to the hours usually worked in a week, rather than the hours actually worked in a given week.

For example, in Williams, the plaintiffs usually worked 40-hour weeks. Therefore, the applicable regular rate would be determined by dividing their total weekly compensation (base salary plus commissions) by 40 and the corresponding overtime time would be 1.5 times that calculation. Under the FWW method, the regular rate would have been based on the number of hours a GNC manager actually worked during the week in question, which, in an overtime scenario, always will be greater than 40. Thus, using the FWW method in this case yielded a lower regular rate of pay and a correspondingly lower overtime rate than under a “usual” workweek calculation. Because an employee’s “usual” workweek and his “actual” workweek are not necessarily the same, the use of the FWW method is prohibited when calculating overtime pay for retail employees covered by the Wage Order.

***

If you have any questions or concerns about these developments or your specific business needs, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

February 20, 2018

Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies Insurance Company is Not ‘Financial Institution’ in Garnishment Law

February 20, 2018

An insurance company named as a garnishee in a garnishment action is not a “financial institution” under Georgia’s garnishment statute when the garnishment is seeking earnings owed to its current or former employees. May 2016 Amendment Apparently responding to a federal judge’s 2015 ruling that portions of Georgia’s post-judgment... Read More

February 7, 2018

Déjà Vu: Implications of a Government Shutdown on Federal Contractors

February 7, 2018

For the second time in a month, for lack of agreement on funding the government long-term, we face the specter of a government shutdown. The government shutdown that began on January 20, 2018, lasted three days. Congress ended that shutdown after voting on a stopgap measure to fund the government until February 8, 2018. As that date... Read More

January 29, 2018

Fitness Industry Workplace Law Update – Winter 2018

January 29, 2018

Welcome to our premiere issue! Our goal is to keep fitness industry clients and contacts informed about employment and labor law issues that may affect your organizations. We hope you find this newsletter valuable and invite you to share it with interested colleagues and contacts. In this issue, we provide a brief summary of hot... Read More

Related Practices