May 22, 2012

Comp Time or Overtime?

Recently, a collective action was filed against Bank of America alleging, among other things, that bank tellers and personal bankers across the country were routinely paid “comp time” instead of wages for overtime hours worked.

Most people are familiar with the term “comp time,” or “compensatory time.” A “comp time” program exists when an employer gives a “credit” for future paid time off to an employee instead of wages for hours worked. Comp time usually is applied to overtime hours, and the “credit” given is frequently one hour of “credit” for one hour of work. When comp time is used like this for overtime, it creates two problems: failure to pay wages and failure to pay time and one half for hours worked over forty in a work week.

Although this is a common practice, in most situations it is an illegal pay practice. If you are a private employer (i.e., non-governmental or public), there is no comp time for non-exempt employees. If a non-exempt employee works for more than forty hours in a week, the employee is entitled to pay at the rate of 1 ½ times his or her regular rate of pay for each hour worked over forty.

As the recent lawsuit alleging the illegal use of comp time against Bank of America reminds us, even if it seems like “everybody else is doing it,” comp time is still an illegal pay practice. We expect comp time to be a focus of the Department of Labor—and probably plaintiffs’ attorneys—in the coming years. Carefully review your pay practices to ensure that, if you are a private employer, your non-exempt employees are receiving monetary “comp” at a rate of 1 1/2 times their regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of 40 during one week.

© 2009 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

Contributors

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.