Various Federal, State, and local laws require the payment of minimum hourly, daily or weekly wages different from the minimum set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the payment of overtime compensation computed on bases different from those set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Where such legislation is applicable and does not contravene the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, nothing in the act, the regulations or the interpretations announced by the Administrator should be taken to override or nullify the provisions of these laws. Compliance with other applicable legislation does not excuse noncompliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Where a higher minimum wage than that set in the Fair Labor Standards Act is applicable to an employee by virtue of such other legislation, the regular rate of the employee, as the term is used in the Fair Labor Standards Act, cannot be lower than such applicable minimum, for the words “regular rate at which he is employed” as used in section 7 must be construed to mean the regular rate at which he is lawfully employed.
Notes of Decisions
Copantitla v. Fiskardo Estiatorio, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.5 . Based on these regulations, paying an overtime wage one and one-half times the base hourly wage rate, as defendants have done, is improper.”
Gilb v. Chiang, 16 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 616 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “” In his reply brief on appeal, the Controller for the first time quotes title 29 C.F.R. part 778.5 (2009), which states in part: “Where a higher minimum wage than that set in the [FLSA] is applicable to an employee by virtue of such other legislation, the regular rate of the…”
Rodriguez v. Almighty Cleaning, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 2d 114 (E.D.N.Y 2011).
“…is higher than the federal minimum wage, the federal overtime rate is calculated based on the state minimum wage. 29 C.F.R. § 778.5 .”
Ventura v. L. A. Howard Constr. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2015).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.5 (stating that employees are entitled to higher mínimums set by state law if FLSA standards are lower); Williams v.”
Taylor v. United Parcel Serv. Inc., 17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 307 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010).
“) The IWC has promulgated numerous wage orders—one concerning the state minimum wage and the balance covering workers employed in various industries.”
Gurung v. Malhotra, 851 F. Supp. 2d 583 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
“Courts in this District have so held, relying on 29 C.F.R. § 778.5 , which incorporates the state minimum wage for purposes of calculating overtime under the FLSA, and 29 U.”
Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp., 938 F. Supp. 2d 380 (E.D.N.Y 2013).
“d one-half times the regular straight time hourly rate for the hours worked in excess of 40 per week; (2) during the relevant time period, defendants further violated Sections 7 and 15(a)(2) of the Act for the work weeks when defendants paid certain employees at a reconstructed…”
Martinez v. Asian 328, LLC, 220 F. Supp. 3d 117 (D.D.C. 2016).
“2015) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 778.5 ). The DCWPCL provides, in pertinent part, that an employer who does not pay the proper minimum and overtime wages “shall pay, or be additionally liable to, the employee, as liquidated damages, *123 .”
Skyline Homes, Inc. v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985).
“(See 29 C.F.R. § 778.5 .) 3 Amicus argues that while this provision authorizes states to adopt higher minimum wage rates and lower overtime thresholds than those prescribed by the FLSA, it does not authorize state laws that “go beyond specifying what hours constitute overtime…”
Webster v. Bechtel, Inc., 621 P.2d 890 (Alaska 1980).
“Various Federal, State, and local laws require the payment of minimum hourly, daily or weekly wages different from the minimum set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the payment of overtime compensation computed on bases different from those set forth in the Fair Labor…”
Moodie v. Kiawah Island Inn Co., 124 F. Supp. 3d 711 (D.S.C. 2015).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.5 . The H-2B regulations provide for a “prevailing wage” that employers must pay H-2B workers.”
Alaska Int'l Indus., Inc. v. Musarra, 602 P.2d 1240 (Alaska 1979).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.5 . 20 . State law also applies in those limited situations in which connections to interstate commerce do not exist sufficient to come under the protection of the federal statute.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 778.5(d) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.