Chipotle workers sue for overtime based on expansive rule enjoined by federal judge
Kristi Blokhin / Shutterstock.com
A proposed class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Chipotle workers in New Jersey seeks overtime pay under a Labor Department rule that expands worker eligibility, even though a federal judge enjoined implementation of the rule in November 2016.
The name plaintiff in the suit is Carmen Alvarez, who was an “apprentice” training to be a general manager who regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but was not paid for her overtime, according to the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant had barred the Labor Department from implementing and enforcing the rule, which would have allowed salaried workers making up to $47,476 to be eligible for overtime pay after working 40 hours a week. The old rule said nonexempt employees making less than $23,660 were eligible for overtime pay.
Mazzant had ruled the U.S. Department of Labor didn’t have statutory authority to set a salary threshold or to automatically update the amount.
The suit filed by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll argues that the injunction did not stop the rule from going into effect. Cohen Milstein partner Joseph Sellers explained in an interview with Bloomberg BNA.
Sellers said the Administrative Procedure Act provides that rules that are issued for final publication with an effective date automatically go into effect unless a court issues a final adjudication vacating the rule, and that hasn’t happened yet in the Texas case. “The Department of Labor doesn’t implement the rule,” he said. “The rule goes into effect on its own.”
The suit also claims the preliminary injunction does not apply to workers seeking to enforce the rule through private causes of action.
Jackson Lewis lawyer Paul DeCamp, who represents employers in wage-and-hour matters, told Bloomberg he believed the injunction did stop implementation of the rule. “The argument that the plaintiffs seem to be making is a reach,” he said.
The Labor Department had appealed the injunction. In February, however, Justice Department lawyers asked for more time to consider the issues, according to the Washington Post.
The National Law Journal (sub. req.) and USA Today also have coverage of the suit.
