Lawsuits Question After-Hours Demands of Email and Cellphones

[question everything]

AUGUST 11, 2009

Lawsuits Question After-Hours Demands of Email and Cellphones

By MICHAEL SANSERINO
WSJ

Two recent lawsuits raise a question that many employees and employers have deliberated: Should hourly workers be paid for time spent responding to work calls or emails while off the clock? The federal suits highlight the legal issues sparked by the proliferation of personal technology as well as the blurring of work and free time.

Last month, three current and former employees sued T-Mobile USA Inc., claiming they were required to use company-issued smart phones to respond to work messages after hours without pay. In a March suit, a former CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. maintenance worker seeks pay for time spent after hours receiving and responding to messages on a work-issued cellphone. The two cases come amid other disputes over when employees should be paid. A California appeals court recently reinstated a suit by employees of medical-technology provider Lincare Inc. seeking compensation for time spent answering customer questions by phone while on call. Lincare didn't respond to calls for comment.

(snip)

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act says employees must be paid for work performed off the clock, even if the work was voluntary. When the law was passed in 1938, "work" was easy to define for hourly employees, said Mr. McCoy. As the workplace changed, so did the rules for when workers should be paid. Subsequent court decisions have interpreted the law to require some hourly employees to be paid for putting on and taking off work uniforms, like police gear, and for time spent while booting up computers.. More recently, workers and their advocates have sought to apply the law to cover time driving to and from assignments off company property.

(snip)

The current and former T-Mobile employees say they were required to use company-issued smart phones to respond to work-related messages, including customer complaints, after hours without pay. When the workers reported the hours to management of the cellphone company, the lawsuit says, the employees were told nothing could be done and they should expect to work extra hours as part of T-Mobile's "standard business practices." In a statement, the company said it complies with wage and hour laws, but doesn't comment on pending litigation. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

In the CB Richard Ellis case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, John Rulli, a former maintenance worker for the commercial real-estate services company in Muskego, Wis., said he wasn't paid for after-hours time spent receiving and responding to messages on his cellphone. In the suit, Mr. Rulli said he was handcuffed to his phone because the company required him to quickly respond to messages at any hour. CB Richard Ellis declined to address the specifics but said in a statement, "We believe this complaint is without merit and are contesting it vigorously." The company said it complies with employment laws.

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124986371466018299.html (subscription)

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A17

[rfranklin]

1. Roberts and Scalia will rule that you are required to work off the clock...

Mark my words.

[cabluedem]

2. Why not? Walmart does it so it must be OK. ?

[hobbit709]

3. The minute I clock out is the same time I turn that phone OFF.

[question everything]

4. As it should be

Get your own cell phone - a prepaid one - to use for your off hours.