May 22, 2012

Company-Issued Smartphones and the FLSA: Keeping Employees Connected May Have Its Price

In Allen v. City of Chicago, a case recently filed in federal court in Illinois, a municipal employee sued the City of Chicago for failing to pay overtime for working on his company-issued BlackBerry smartphone. The plaintiff, a sergeant for the Chicago Police Department, claims that his employer provided the device so that he could be accessible 24 hours a day/seven days a week, but then did not pay overtime for his required off-duty use of the BlackBerry.

The claim was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law that typically requires companies to keep track of and to pay employees for all time that they work, including overtime. If an FLSA violation occurs, employees can bring a federal case to seek overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 during a workweek and request an award of liquidated damages and attorneys' fees (if their case is successful). In other words, failure to comply can expose employers to a significant level of liability.

Although Allen v. City of Chicago may appear unusual at first glance, it is not the first lawsuit of its kind to be filed and it may serve as a sign of things to come. The best way for employers to avoid a claim of this nature is to be proactive. For starters, when determining who should be issued a smartphone, it is important to consider whether an employee is "exempt" or "non-exempt" under the FLSA. Generally, an exempt employee is an executive, administrative or professional employee who receives a fixed salary, no matter how many hours he or she works in a week. Exempt employees are not entitled to overtime pay. A non-exempt employee, on the other hand, usually (but not always) earns an hourly wage and qualifies for overtime compensation. Under the FLSA, any overtime work performed by a non-exempt employee must be recorded and paid in full by the employer. Particularly since smartphones have become ubiquitous in the workplace, this very well may include time used to respond to business-related e-mails or phone calls on a company-issued device while out of the office.

One cost-effective approach employers can take to protect themselves is to develop a companywide, written policy for the use of smartphones and other personal electronic devices. For example, your policy might state that smartphones will only be issued to exempt employees since they do not qualify for overtime compensation under the FLSA. Other provisions might include limiting use of the devices to designated work hours (thus avoiding the issue of overtime altogether) or requiring that strict records be kept when using the devices (so that all related overtime is recorded and non-exempt employees are paid accordingly).

Although the court has yet to rule in Allen v. City of Chicago, employers should take note of the issues raised by this case  If you need assistance drafting a smartphone policy or if your company is already the party to an employment-related lawsuit, please contact your attorney.

© 2012 Much Shelist, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

James R. Carroll, a Principal in the firm’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Illinois for 15 years under four separate Attorneys General—including serving as First Assistant Attorney General during the administration of Roland W. Burris. A highly experienced litigator, Jim focuses his practice on complex litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both the...

312-521-2721

About the Author

Associate

Shawn M. Staples, an Associate in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution group, focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation, appellate litigation, and government law and litigation. A member of the firm's Financial Crisis Response Team, Shawn also has assisted clients in the collection of defaulted debt, including litigating commercial real...

312-521-2726

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.