Labor & Employment
Law Firm Layoffs (and Alternatives) Create Litigation Risk
Posted Mar 13, 2009 8:00 PM CST
By Martha Neil
Employment litigation, in general, is increasing, and laid-off lawyers certainly should be able to recognize a possible cause of action as quickly as most potential plaintiffs.
So law firms need to exercise care when making layoffs—particularly since they, unlike their corporate clients, don't have much prior experience doing so, reports the National Law Journal in a reprise of an earlier NLJ article.
But developing laws and practices are making it harder for employers to stay on top of the rules. Among them, a seemingly brand-new employment trend sparked by the sputtering economy is creating another potential pitfall for unwary employers, including law firms, according to the Connecticut Post: By reducing work schedules in an effort to avoid layoffs, employers can inadvertently shift exempt salaried workers to nonexempt status.
In a worst-case scenario, that could require retroactive payment of overtime pay back to day one, says attorney Dan Green. He chairs the employment group at Begos Horgan & Brown in Westport, Conn.
Employment discrimination suits are already at a 44-year high, reports Bloomberg, based on statistics compiled by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The news agency attributes the litigation increase to a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year allowing FedEx Corp. employees to sue without first making a formal complaint to the EEOC.
And the recent Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is likely to open the door to even more litigation, writes Inc. magazine.
Another development also does not favor potential law firm defendants in employment litigation. A decade ago, associates hesitated to sue their former firms, fearing that the litigation would hurt them when seeking new work elsewhere. But that's no longer as big a roadblock, so associate litigation against law firms is rising, too.
"We're seeing more of that now," partner Gerald Hathaway of Littler Mendelson tells the National Law Journal. "It's a new phenomenon."
Related coverage:
Marketwire: "Layoffs Leave Law Firms Vulnerable to Employment Practices Lawsuits"
ABAJournal.com: "Law Firms, Other Employers Battle New Enforcement of WARN Layoff Rules "
ABAJournal.com: "11th Circuit Nixes Attorney Fee, Although Paralegal Won OT Pay From Law Firm"
ABAJournal.com: "Ledbetter Law Cited in Suits Over Promotions, Demotions and Pensions"

Comments
B. McLeod
Mar 14, 2009 4:46 PM CST
Law firms have always been among the worst employers as far as complying with labor and employment laws. As the article recognizes, in an ordinary economy, firms get a “pass” for bad conduct, because it is more efficient for screwed over employees to simply go elsewhere. In an economic downturn which has reduced thousands of “associates” to the status of the hard-core unemployable, this ceases to be true, and the lawsuits may be the only shot they have left. HOORAY! I may actually buy some stock in a popcorn company.
Flag this comment
Jose
Mar 16, 2009 6:18 AM CST
Everyone who gets laid off is suing these days. Why not? The corporations will settle so it makes sense to sue regardless of why you were laid off.
Lawsuit equals severance money even if it isn’t justified If you don’t sue you don’t get anything.
Flag this comment
Anthony
Mar 20, 2009 9:07 AM CST
Question: I never studied employment law, but I am curious about the articles statement that “By reducing work schedules in an effort to avoid layoffs, employers can inadvertently shift exempt salaried workers to nonexempt status.” Can someone please explain this or cite a good source of information?
Many thanks.
Flag this comment
Mikey
Mar 20, 2009 9:39 AM CST
#3 - in a nutshell, part of qualifying as “exempt” under the FLSA (which lawyers do under the white collar “professional” exemption) means being compensated on a “salary basis,” which in turn means that you are paid a guaranteed amount of $$ per week regardless of the number of hours you actually work. So, unlike with furloughs of hourly-paid (non-exempt) employees, you can’t just tell an exempt employee to stay home on Fridays and not pay him/her for that day. To be salaried for exempt status under wage-hour, you must be paid your full salary for any week in which you perform any work at all (subject to some exceptions that I won’t go into here).
Of course, the employer can always change the terms of employment prospectively, i.e., can say that starting next week, we only expect you to bill 1800 hrs per yr instead of 2000, and we’re accordingly reducing your salary by 10%, so there are ways around it, but the article is correct that if it;s handled improperly, it can cause the employee to lose exempt status, meaning then that the employer cn be liable for up to three years of back pay for overtime above 40 hrs. per week.
Flag this comment
RB
Mar 20, 2009 6:07 PM CST
#4 needs to get some refresher training on overtime exemptions. Under the FLSA, neither lawyers nor doctors need to meet the salary basis test in order to qualify for the exemption; they need only be licensed and practicing law or medicine.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.