Search form

Georgia Minimum Wage Law Applies to Employees Exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act, State High Court Rules

By Eric R. Magnus and Justin R. Barnes
  • December 17, 2015

In-home personal care employees in Georgia were covered by the state’s minimum wage law, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled, notwithstanding the fact that those employees were exempt from the minimum wage requirements of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Anderson v. Southern Home Care Services, et al., No. S15Q1127 (Nov. 23, 2015).

Under the Georgia Minimum Wage Law, employees are entitled to at least $5.15 per hour, unless they are subject to the minimum wage provisions of any act of Congress, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, and would receive a greater minimum wage than the GMWL minimum. Such employees would not be covered and protected by the GMWL.

Background

Two former employees of in-home personal care companies filed suit in Georgia state court alleging they had not been paid the minimum wage to which they were entitled under the Georgia Minimum Wage Law (OCGA §§ 34-4-1 to 34-4-6). The employees provided in-home personal support services to their employers’ medically home-bound clients. The employees often had to drive between different clients’ homes during the workday and were not compensated for this time.

FLSA and GMWL

The case was removed to a federal district court, which certified two questions to the Georgia Supreme Court:

  1. Is an employee who falls under an FLSA exemption effectively “covered” by the FLSA for purposes of Georgia Minimum Wage Law (OCGA § 34-4-3(c)) analysis, thereby prohibiting said employee from receiving minimum wage compensation under the GMWL?
  2. Is an individual whose employment consists of providing in-home personal support services prohibited from receiving minimum wage compensation under the GMWL pursuant to the “domestic employees” exception articulated in Georgia Minimum Wage Law (OCGA § 34-4-3(b)(3)?

The Court answered both questions in the negative.

The parties agreed that the employees were exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage requirements under the “companionship exemption.” The employers argued, however, that even though the employees were exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the companionship exemption, they were still “covered” by other FLSA provisions, and, therefore, that the Georgia minimum wage law did not apply to them. The Court rejected that argument. The Court held the GMWL is focused squarely on employees who are exempted from the FLSA’s minimum wage provisions and who could benefit from a state minimum wage (albeit a lower rate than the federal minimum wage), rather than employers who are “covered” by the FLSA. Accordingly, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that employees who were previously exempt from minimum wage under the FLSA companionship exemption nevertheless were covered by the Georgia minimum wage law.

***

It remains to be seen how Anderson may affect employees who are exempt under other FLSA exemptions, such as the administrative or executive exemptions. The state Supreme Court expressly rejected the argument that if an employer is “covered” by the FLSA (meaning, subject to the requirements of the FLSA), it is not subject to the GMWL as was thought previously. Rather, the Court looked to whether the individual employee was “covered” by the minimum wage provisions of a federal statute, in particular, the FLSA, in determining whether an employee is entitled to protections under the GMWL.

If Georgia courts interpret this decision literally, then employers in Georgia must begin tracking the hours of work of all of their exempt employees and ensure the total pay divided by total hours worked of each of these employees is at least equal to or greater than the Georgia minimum wage.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and other workplace developments.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA

September 13, 2019

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019). This is surprising, as the Court provided... Read More

September 13, 2019

California Worker Misclassification Bill Closer to Enactment

September 13, 2019

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated his... Read More

September 9, 2019

Non-Agricultural Employers May Use Workweek Averaging to Satisfy State Minimum Wage Obligations in Washington

September 9, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed that non-agricultural employers may use a workweek averaging methodology to satisfy the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Sampson et al. v. Knight Transportation Inc. et al., No. 96264-2 (Sept. 5, 2019). In other words, non-agricultural employers can satisfy their state minimum wage... Read More

Related Practices