4 ms·

Completely misleading title - it should read 'Groupon Salesperson Files Class-Action Suit'. You only need one person to file a lawsuit, class-action or otherwi

Completely misleading title - it should read 'Groupon Salesperson Files Class-Action Suit'. You only need one person to file a lawsuit, class-action or otherwise, and there's no indication in any of the docs that any other members of Groupon's sales team are involved. From the filing (in Justia - http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2011cv05685/259040/1/ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinoi...) it looks to my completely-not-an-expert-eyes like Groupon's mistake here was not treating its salaried employees like salaried employees - on rare occasions it gave them overtime pay, and on the attached pay stub hours and an hourly rate ($15.62) are clearly recorded. Whoops.

tptacek 15y ago
If that's true, it's a pretty common error. Most tech companies operate under the (usually valid) assumption that their employees are all salaried and exempt from OT comp. But it's usually to the benefit of all those employees to be classified "hourly", and theres a bunch of innocuous things employers can do to make that happen. More common than breaking people's status with overtime payments: threatening to dock pay for coming in late or missing days.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  California, a few years ago, cracked down on this. Entry level programmers are not exempt. I think because they lack responsibility or skill or somesuch. I found this out only when I had to start filling out time sheets. I became exempt again after a raise, apparently there's some salary floor at which point they assume you have to have responsibility because you're paid too much not to. FWIW, CA appears to exempt outside sales but not inside sales, so probably all groupon salespeople in CA have a case.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    This is shocking to me. Are you sure? Being non-exempt is a big deal. And it cuts both ways: it also means your employer can dock you when you show up late. Are you sure about this? Are junior devs literally punching timecards?
    - bmm6o 15y ago
      Yes: http://www.paymeovertime.com/overtime-pay.php http://www.paymeovertime.com/overtime-pay.php. The law changed sometime around the end of the .com bubble.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        "This is why every computer and IT employee who is classified as exempt, should speak to a California labor law attorney to review their employment matter." Gag.
        bmm6o 15y ago
        > Gag. I can't tell if you're objecting to the law or the messenger. The site is obviously trying to drum up business, but their advertizing tactics aren't really germane.
    - ak217 15y ago
      I think this is it: http://www.management-advantage.com/products/overtime-exempt.html http://www.management-advantage.com/products/overtime-exempt... 1. "Minimum Salary Test" The minimum salary level for exempt white collar employees according to A.B. 60 is "no less than two times the state minimum wage for full time employment." "White collar" exemptions refer to the executive, administrative, learned professional, creative professional, computer employee, and outside sales exemptions specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as amended effective 8/23/2004. Computing the California minimum salary level for January 2009 we do the following: Current minimum wage = $8.00 per hour X 2,080 hours in a year = $16,640, multiplied by 2 times the minimum wage = $33,280
      - tptacek 15y ago
        So that seems to boil down to: interns are non-exempt.
      - tedunangst 15y ago
        You must already be exempt for that test to apply. It doesn't mean anyone making $16/hr becomes exempt.
ltamake 15y ago
> In a filing in Chicago federal court this week, former salesperson Ranita Dailey confirmed she will be lead plaintiff on behalf of Groupon employees who seek to recoup overtime that the company allegedly failed to pay. Just because she's the lead plantiff doesn't mean the others aren't involved.
- tptacek 15y ago
  (i) Sales staff are usually salaried exempt. I would be interested in a specific counterexample (ie, "inside sales at Airbnb is non-exempt!"). (ii) As a result, OT compensation for sales staff is usually zero. (iii) This filing claims Groupon paid OT comp in the past. That was probably dumb. They don't have to. (iv) By doing that, they created a basis for sales staff to argue that they were in fact non-exempt. But see (i): the expectation among sales professionals is that they are exempt. (v) The other specific complaint in this filing is that Groupon didn't include commissions (variable comp) in the calculation for time-and-a-half overtime. In other words, they paid time-and-a-half overtime, which (see (iii)) they didn't need to do, but didn't do it to someone's satisfaction. How legit does this case seem to you? It looks like a gotcha case over FLSA status. You think the whole sales team signed on for that? I'm not saying they're going to lose (it'll probably settle out). But does the core issue in here really seem legit to you? It doesn't to me.
  - rprasad 15y ago
    The key phrase, of course, is that sales people are "usually" but not always exempt employees. Actions speak louder than words, and treating a purported-exempt employee as a non-exempt employee (i.e., compensating them based on hours worked, or docking pay for not working specific hours) is pretty much all you need to do (as an employer) for the employee to be classified as non-exempt. The laws, and especially the NLRB administrative decisions, favor the employees in this regard. The "expectations" bit doesn't matter in this case, because the specific actions of Groupon make those industry-standard expectations irrelevant. It's about what Groupon did, not what everyone else does. Once Groupon began treating the sales staff as non-exempt employees, they became non-exempt employees, and Groupon became obligated to compensate them for time-and-a-half overtime. Based on the facts currently available in the linked article and other sources online, I am saying that Groupon would lose if it gets to a hearing. But chances are better than 99% that they'll settle (or go bankrupt before the case gets anywhere in the court system).

tptacek 15y ago

If that's true, it's a pretty common error. Most tech companies operate under the (usually valid) assumption that their employees are all salaried and exempt from OT comp. But it's usually to the benefit of all those employees to be classified "hourly", and theres a bunch of innocuous things employers can do to make that happen. More common than breaking people's status with overtime payments: threatening to dock pay for coming in late or missing days.

tedunangst 15y ago
California, a few years ago, cracked down on this. Entry level programmers are not exempt. I think because they lack responsibility or skill or somesuch. I found this out only when I had to start filling out time sheets. I became exempt again after a raise, apparently there's some salary floor at which point they assume you have to have responsibility because you're paid too much not to. FWIW, CA appears to exempt outside sales but not inside sales, so probably all groupon salespeople in CA have a case.
- tptacek 15y ago
  This is shocking to me. Are you sure? Being non-exempt is a big deal. And it cuts both ways: it also means your employer can dock you when you show up late. Are you sure about this? Are junior devs literally punching timecards?
  - bmm6o 15y ago
    Yes: http://www.paymeovertime.com/overtime-pay.php http://www.paymeovertime.com/overtime-pay.php. The law changed sometime around the end of the .com bubble.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      "This is why every computer and IT employee who is classified as exempt, should speak to a California labor law attorney to review their employment matter." Gag.
      - bmm6o 15y ago
        > Gag. I can't tell if you're objecting to the law or the messenger. The site is obviously trying to drum up business, but their advertizing tactics aren't really germane.
  - ak217 15y ago
    I think this is it: http://www.management-advantage.com/products/overtime-exempt.html http://www.management-advantage.com/products/overtime-exempt... 1. "Minimum Salary Test" The minimum salary level for exempt white collar employees according to A.B. 60 is "no less than two times the state minimum wage for full time employment." "White collar" exemptions refer to the executive, administrative, learned professional, creative professional, computer employee, and outside sales exemptions specified in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as amended effective 8/23/2004. Computing the California minimum salary level for January 2009 we do the following: Current minimum wage = $8.00 per hour X 2,080 hours in a year = $16,640, multiplied by 2 times the minimum wage = $33,280
    - tptacek 15y ago
      So that seems to boil down to: interns are non-exempt.
    - tedunangst 15y ago
      You must already be exempt for that test to apply. It doesn't mean anyone making $16/hr becomes exempt.

ltamake 15y ago

> In a filing in Chicago federal court this week, former salesperson Ranita Dailey confirmed she will be lead plaintiff on behalf of Groupon employees who seek to recoup overtime that the company allegedly failed to pay. Just because she's the lead plantiff doesn't mean the others aren't involved.

tptacek 15y ago
(i) Sales staff are usually salaried exempt. I would be interested in a specific counterexample (ie, "inside sales at Airbnb is non-exempt!"). (ii) As a result, OT compensation for sales staff is usually zero. (iii) This filing claims Groupon paid OT comp in the past. That was probably dumb. They don't have to. (iv) By doing that, they created a basis for sales staff to argue that they were in fact non-exempt. But see (i): the expectation among sales professionals is that they are exempt. (v) The other specific complaint in this filing is that Groupon didn't include commissions (variable comp) in the calculation for time-and-a-half overtime. In other words, they paid time-and-a-half overtime, which (see (iii)) they didn't need to do, but didn't do it to someone's satisfaction. How legit does this case seem to you? It looks like a gotcha case over FLSA status. You think the whole sales team signed on for that? I'm not saying they're going to lose (it'll probably settle out). But does the core issue in here really seem legit to you? It doesn't to me.
- rprasad 15y ago
  The key phrase, of course, is that sales people are "usually" but not always exempt employees. Actions speak louder than words, and treating a purported-exempt employee as a non-exempt employee (i.e., compensating them based on hours worked, or docking pay for not working specific hours) is pretty much all you need to do (as an employer) for the employee to be classified as non-exempt. The laws, and especially the NLRB administrative decisions, favor the employees in this regard. The "expectations" bit doesn't matter in this case, because the specific actions of Groupon make those industry-standard expectations irrelevant. It's about what Groupon did, not what everyone else does. Once Groupon began treating the sales staff as non-exempt employees, they became non-exempt employees, and Groupon became obligated to compensate them for time-and-a-half overtime. Based on the facts currently available in the linked article and other sources online, I am saying that Groupon would lose if it gets to a hearing. But chances are better than 99% that they'll settle (or go bankrupt before the case gets anywhere in the court system).