Kansas City Employment Lawyer Blog

Have you ever been asked for your zip code when making a credit card purchase? A retailer can use the zip code to determine your address and add that information to the company's database. Stores routinely mine customer information as a way to measure buying habits and target promotions. They may also sell the information to other companies. Stores may also be eligible to pay lower processing fees from credit-card networks if they ask customers to provide a zip code.

A recent California Supreme Court ruling has determined that the zip code is part of a consumer's address. Retailers that ask for your zip code when making a credit card purchase are, therefore, in violation of the state's credit-card law. California's 1971 credit- card law prohibits merchants from requesting or requiring a cardholder's "personal identification information" as a condition of accepting the card for payment. Penalties for violations are fines of $250.00 for the first violation and as much as $1,000.00 for each subsequent violation.

Other states that have this kind of protection for consumers include Kansas, Rhode Island and Oregon.

If merchants you shop with are asking for your zip code you may have a claim against them for violations of consumer protection laws. Call the attorneys at Brady & Associates to discuss your rights.

Source:
Ruling on Zip Codes Spawns Suits Against Retailers, The Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2011

A lot of workers (and their employers) are confused about whether or not an employee must be paid for their "on call" time. In the days of iPhones and Blackberries employees can be reached almost anywhere, anytime. Many workers believe that if they can be called into work, they should be paid for that time and even be eligible for overtime. However, usually, "on call" time is not usually compensable if your employer is following a few rules.

First thing's first, if you are on your employer's property and cannot leave because you are "on call", you should be paid for that time. Even though you may be watching TV, reading a book or talking on the phone, if you are "on call" (meaning you must begin work as soon as you are notified) and you are on your employer's property, you should be paid for all of your time.

If you are off duty, meaning you are at home or at another location, which you are free to come and go but still "on call" your time is generally not compensable. However, for this time to not be compensable, your employer must follow three rules. First, you must be fully compensated for your regular "on duty" shifts. Second, you must be paid for your actual time responding to calls (meaning, if you are sent an email or take a phone call, you must be paid for that time, even if you didn't have to go into work). Finally, except for having to respond to calls, you are free to use your "on call" time to eat, sleep or pursue any normal range of activities as if you were not on call.

Next time you have an "on call" shift, make sure you think about whether your time is really your own, and if you are being compensated for each phone call and email that you are required to respond to. If you aren't being fully compensated, you likely have a claim for unpaid wages.

State Street Bank and New York Mellon Bank have recently been sued for overcharging several public sector pension funds for foreign currency exchanges.

The scheme alleged in the suits goes like this: the pension fund contracts with the bank as the custodian of its assets; the pension fund also contracts with an investment manager to invest pension fund assets in foreign securities; the investment manager needs to convert dollars to foreign currency, or vice versa, each time it trades in foreign securities for the pension fund; under "standing instructions" between the bank and the investment manager, the bank agrees to execute the foreign currency exchanges to facilitate the investment manager's foreign securities trades; the bank has a twenty-four hour window to execute each foreign currency exchanges, during which time the exchange rates between the dollar and the other relevant currency fluctuate; the bank executes the foreign currency exchanges from the pension fund's account at the exchange rate as of a specific time of day, but the bank charges the pension fund account at the most expensive exchange rate of the entire day, and the bank essentially pockets the difference; the bank misleads the pension fund and/or the investment manager regarding the bank's foreign currency exchange practices on the bank's pension fund account.

The recent lawsuits allege violations of state law to recover losses suffered by public sector pension funds. A federal law, commonly referred to as ERISA, however, governs most investment-related activity for private sector pension funds. If State Street and Mellon have been applying the same scheme as described above to their private sector pension fund accounts, some very complex ERISA issues would be implicated.

As to the bank, the scheme implicates two fundamental prohibitions under ERISA: fiduciary self-dealing, and fiduciary dishonesty. By exercising discretion over the foreign exchange rates to apply and assess against a pension fund account, the bank would be a "functional fiduciary" of the pension fund under ERISA. By utilizing such discretion to feather its own bed, the bank would be engaged in "fiduciary self-dealing" with pension fund assets. By misleading the pension fund or the investment manager about its foreign currency exchange practices, the bank would be engaged in fiduciary dishonesty.

Continue reading "Banks Pocket Spread from Pension Funds On Foreign Currency Exchanges" »

"Tipped employees," such as restaurant servers and bartenders, are often paid a minimum wage of only $2.13 by their employer. The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, but allows for a "tip credit" of up to $5.12 an hour for a tipped employee. As long as the tipped employee receives at least $7.25 an hour in combined wages and tips during the pay period, such an arrangement is generally lawful. But "generally" is a tricky word when it comes to the law and tipped employees. If fact, there are several exceptions to the general rule, and when any of those exceptions apply, employers frequently violate their employees' rights. Here are some common violations of the rights of tipped employees.

First, only employees who directly serve the public are allowed to be paid the lower tipped minimum wage. Thus, dish washers and cooks, for example, must be paid the full minimum wage from their employer. Also, only employees who directly serve the public may be included in a "tip pool." A tip pool is where tips received during a shift are pooled and then distributed to employees on a pro rata or some other basis. Paying out part of a tip pool to employees who don't directly serve the public nullifies the employer's right to the tip credit, entitling all employees participating in the tip pool to be paid $7.25 per hour by their employer. For example, some employers unlawfully include "expediters" in their tip pools. An expediter typically inspects plates of food just before they are delivered to customers to make sure that orders are filled correctly and presented in an appetizing way. Such expediters don't directly serve the public, and cannot lawfully be included in a tip pool.

Second, some states have a higher minimum wage for tipped employees than federal law. In Missouri, for example, an employer must pay tipped employees at least $3.63 an hour, $1.50 more than the federal requirement.

Continue reading "Real Tips for Tipped Employees " »

With the advent of electronic time clocks, employers have been able to track the hours employees work with greater accuracy and efficiency. However, the use of electronic time clocks and computers have also made it easier than ever for employers to monitor and sometimes modify when employees clock in and out.

It's a little known fact, but the law allows employers to round employees' hours just as long as it doesn't result in the loss of money to the employee. An employer can round to the nearest five, ten or even fifteen minute increment at the beginning or end of an employee's shift. However, it is illegal for the employer to round so that it is always in the employer's favor. So rounding forward at the beginning of a shift and backwards at the end of a shift would not be allowed.

For example, let's assume the employer wants to round to the nearest five minutes. If an employee's shift begins at 9:00 and the employee clocks in at 8:56, the employer can automatically round that employee's time to 9:00. However, if the employee clocks out at 5:03, the employer must round the employee's time to 5:05, the nearest five minutes. If the employee's time is rounded to 5:00, the rounding would be in the employer's favor and is likely illegal.

The theory behind rounding is that over long periods of time the rounding sometimes favors the employer and sometimes favors the employee. It is generally thought that the rounding will average out and neither the employer nor the employee will gain any advantage.

However, rounding becomes tricky because the only way that it is legal for an employer to round an employee's time is to ensure that the time clock rounding is done in an equal and fair way. Unfortunately, many employers get this wrong and employees are left with losing money on their paychecks.