Yes, this is what they call a "case of first impression." That means no court has decided the issue before. The issue the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided is this:
Although the value of benefits are obviously not included in the overtime calculation, the cash equivalents that employers sometimes pay "in lieu" of benefits count as wages that would be included. This decision will apply in California because federal law applies everywhere.
So, let's back up. The City of San Gabriel had in place a "Flexible Benefits Plan" under which it allowed employees to take cash in lieu of certain health care benefits under certain circumstances, explained here:
The City provides a Flexible Benefits Plan to its employees under which the City furnishes a designated monetary amount to each employee for the purchase of medical, vision, and dental benefits. All employees are required to use a portion of these funds to purchase vision and dental benefits. An employee may decline to use the remainder of these funds to purchase medical benefits only upon proof that the employee has alternate medical coverage, such as through a spouse. If an employee elects to forgo medical benefits because she has alternate coverage, she may receive the unused portion of her benefits allotment as a cash payment added to her regular paycheck.
The city argued that these payments were excluded from overtime calculations and the regular rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act's section 207(e)(2), which excludes:
payments made for occasional periods when no work is performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, failure of the employer to provide sufficient work, or other similar cause; reasonable payments for traveling expenses, or other expenses, incurred by an employee in the furtherance of his employer’s interests and properly reimbursable by the employer; and other similar payments to an employee which are not made as compensation for his hours of employment.
The Ninth Circuit panel was concerned with the phrase "other similar payments to an employee which are not made as compensation for his hours of employment." The court decided that the DOL's regulations and court's precedents did not include these payments in lieu of benefits. Because pay in lieu of benefits did not fall within "other similar payments" they would be part of the regular rate.
The court also noted that section 207(e)(4) expressly excludes the value of the benefits themselves from the regular rate. However, rather than treating the cash in lieu as a benefit equivalent, the court said that the payment "in lieu" meant that the cash was not a benefit at all. Of note, the court found that the cash payments were made directly to the employees, whereas section 207(e)(4) requires payment of the benefit premiums to a third party such as a benefits trust. The regulation interpreting section 207(e)(4) actually permits payment of cash in lieu of benefits, but caps the amount at 20%. The city's payment was more.
To add insult to injury, the court also found that the city's violation of the FLSA here was "willful" resulting in a 3-year statute of limitation and the availability of "liquidated" or double damages for the violation. The court believed the city did not do enough to research the law in the area, even though there was no case law on the subject (!). This holding drew comment by two of the three judges that the court should re-examine its standards for finding "willfulness."
Cute disclaimer: I'm not an ERISA lawyer and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. (No cookies). Also, employers may or may not have discontinued these plans under the Affordable Care Act. And the case might have come out differently if the pay-in-lieu were administered through a third party trust or administrator because it might have fallen within the section 207(e)(4) exemption. So don't panic until you check with qualified benefits counsel.
However, this case is important if employers continue to offer pay in lieu of benefits, or if it did so within the past three years. It also is important because it underscores the need for employers to consider whether payments to employees are properly included or excluded from overtime, and how overtime is calculated. Again, although this is an FLSA case, it will have an impact in California. So heads up.
This case is Flores v. City of San Gabriel and the opinion is here.
The court also noted that section 207(e)(4) expressly excludes the value of the benefits themselves from the regular rate. However, rather than treating the cash in lieu as a benefit equivalent, the court said that the payment "in lieu" meant that the cash was not a benefit at all. Of note, the court found that the cash payments were made directly to the employees, whereas section 207(e)(4) requires payment of the benefit premiums to a third party such as a benefits trust. The regulation interpreting section 207(e)(4) actually permits payment of cash in lieu of benefits, but caps the amount at 20%. The city's payment was more.
To add insult to injury, the court also found that the city's violation of the FLSA here was "willful" resulting in a 3-year statute of limitation and the availability of "liquidated" or double damages for the violation. The court believed the city did not do enough to research the law in the area, even though there was no case law on the subject (!). This holding drew comment by two of the three judges that the court should re-examine its standards for finding "willfulness."
Cute disclaimer: I'm not an ERISA lawyer and I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. (No cookies). Also, employers may or may not have discontinued these plans under the Affordable Care Act. And the case might have come out differently if the pay-in-lieu were administered through a third party trust or administrator because it might have fallen within the section 207(e)(4) exemption. So don't panic until you check with qualified benefits counsel.
However, this case is important if employers continue to offer pay in lieu of benefits, or if it did so within the past three years. It also is important because it underscores the need for employers to consider whether payments to employees are properly included or excluded from overtime, and how overtime is calculated. Again, although this is an FLSA case, it will have an impact in California. So heads up.
This case is Flores v. City of San Gabriel and the opinion is here.
