The FLSA Does Not Preempt a State Law That Prohibits the Payment of Wages Lower Than the State’s Minimum WageBoth the FLSA and the corresponding regulations allow states to establish a higher minimum wage rate than the rate set by the FLSA. Specifically, section 18(a) of the FLSA provides that “[n]o provision of this chapter or of any order there under shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter . . . .” 29 U.S.C. 218(a). Section 18(a) expressly states that the FLSA does not preempt a state law provision that requires payment of a higher minimum wage than that required under the FLSA.

y effective opportunity and would not cause an undue hardship on the employer’s operation. CAA Div. II, Sec. 104(g).On a final note, the PWFA directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue regulations providing examples of reasonable accommodations addressing known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions within one year of the enactment of the law. CAA Div. II, Sec. 105. Notably, the PWFA expressly waives the states’ sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment with respect to lawsuits alleging PWFA violations.b) Adoption of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (the “PUMP Act”) The purpose of the PUMP Act is to expand access to break time and space under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the “FLSA”) for nursing mothers. As such, the PUMP Act amends the FLSA (29 U.S.C. 207(7)) by striking subsection (r) (Reasonable break time for nursing mothers) and adding the terms of the PUMP Act as a new subsection to 29 U.S.C. 218(c) (Protections for employees). CAA Div. KK, Sec. 102.The PUMP Act provides that employers must:Provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for the employee’s nursing child ( Div. KK, Sec. 102 (cited as SEC. 18D(a)(1));Allow a nursing employee to take reasonable breaks to express milk for a nursing child for up to one (1) year after the child’s birth (); andProvide the employee with a private space, other than a bathroom, to express breast milk ( (cited as SEC. D18(a)(2)).Ensure that the breast milk expression space is shielded from view and free from intrusions from the employee’s coworkers and the public.Before filing a lawsuit due to an employer’s failure to provide a private space for breast milk expression, the employee must notify their employer of the alleged failure and allow the employer ten (10) days to become compliant. CAA Div. KK, Sec. 102 (cited as SEC. 18D(g)(1)); The 10-day notification period does not, however, apply if the employee was termina

-amendment-passes-in-illinois-ap-projects/2997351/.2Illinois General Assembly, "SJRCA0011," accessed November 15, 2022.3See 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009); 29 U.S.C. § 159(a);see also Janus, 138 S. Ct. 2448; Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, § 315/6(c).4SeeIll. Comp. Stat., ch. 5, § 315/4 and 6(c);see generally, e.g., Illinois Dept. of Central Management Servs. v. AFSCME, Council 31, No. S–CB–16–17 etc., 33 PERI ¶ 67 (ILRB Dec. 13, 2016) (Board Decision);Janus, 138 S. Ct. 2448;14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 129 S. Ct. 1456.5Illinois General Assembly, "SJRCA0011," accessed November 15, 2022.6See e.g. Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132, 96 S. Ct. 2548, 49 L.Ed.2d 396 (1976).7See e.g.Section 18(a) of the FLSA providing that "[n]o provision of this chapter or of any order thereunder shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter…". 29 U.S.C. § 218(a).8See Sachen v. Illinois State Board of Elections, 2022 IL App (4th) 220470 (Aug. 26, 2022).9National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Right to Work States, November 11, 2022,https://www.nrtw.org/right-to-work-states/.1029 U.S.C. § 164(b).11Illinois General Assembly, "SJRCA0011," accessed November 15, 2022.12In 2018, the Court held that an Illinois public sector law “violate[d] the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it permitted the collection of fair share fees from nonunion employees working in bargaining unit roles. 138 S. Ct. 2448 at 2486.

Furthermore, while many state wage and hour laws closely track or follow the FLSA, employers must remain mindful of the differences between the FLSA and their own state’s wage and hour regulations. For example, while the current requirements of Pennsylvania’s Minimum Wage Act, 35 P.S. § 333.101, etseq., and regulations at 34 Pa. Code § 231.1, etseq., and New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a, etseq., are substantially similar to the current federal standards, employers must ensure compliance with both federal and applicable state wage and hour laws where there is any difference or deviation between the two.Notably, the FLSA, 29 USCS § 218 (and its regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 541.4) provides that federal law does not affect the enforcement of state overtime requirements. Employers should know that whichever law, state or federal, provides the greater benefit and protection to its employees will be the one enforced.

The employer argued instead that because Illinois law contained no counterpart to section 3(o), it was preempted by federal law. The court rightly rejected this argument because section 18(a) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 218(a) provides that states can exceed the overtime requirements of federal law. Thus, the FLSA would have permitted Illinois law to provide substantive benefits more generous to the employees.

is not required to pay for such time, if the time is otherwise compensable under state law, the FLSA is no defense, held Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit this week.Spoerle v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15960 (7th Cir. Wis. Aug. 2, 2010).Spoerle concerns the compensability of time spent putting on and taking off “safety gear, such as steel-toed boots and hard hats, plus a smock that keeps other garments clean” as well as hair nets and beard nets” at an Oscar Mayer plant in Wisconsin.Id. at * 2.The Court noted that it “takes a few minutes at the start of every day to put these items on, and a few more at day’s end to take them off.”Id.Kraft Foods and the union agreed that this time is not compensable.Id. at * 2-3.However, Kraft Foods also conceded within the context of Spoerle that, but for the existence of a CBA, the time in question would be compensable under Wisconsin’s state wage law.As observed by the district court and reiterated by the Seventh Circuit, 29 U.S.C. § 218(a) of the FLSA states:No provision of this chapter . . . shall excuse noncompliance with any Federal or State law or municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage established under this chapter or a maximum work week lower than the maximumworkweek established under this chapter …. No provision of this chapter shall justify any employer in reducing a wage paid by him which is in excess of the applicable minimum wage under this chapter, or justify any employer in increasing hours of employment maintained by him which are shorter than the maximum hours applicable under this chapter.This provision codifies an unequivocal proposition: the FLSA does not prevent states from enacting wage laws which provide greater rights to employees.

(Pacific Merchant Shipping v, Aubry, 918 F.2d 1409, 1421 (9th Cir. (990), cert den. 112 S.Ct. 2956,) The FLSA expressly allows states to provide higher protections, (29 USC 218(a))2 The listed criteria is also contained in DOL's Wage & Hour Manual (BNA) 91 :416 (1975) and in DOL/WH Field Operations Handbook, See. 10b11 (10/20/93).3 The additional factors to be met under the historical II-factor test by DLSE are as follows: (7) Any clinical training is part of an educational curriculum, (8) the trainees 01' students do not receive employee benefits, (9) the training is general, so as to qualify the trainees or students for work in any similar business, rather than designed specifically for a job with the employer offering the program, Le.

In other words, employers must comply with both federal and state law, ultimately requiring employers to meet the standards of whichever law affords the employee the greatest protection. See 29 U.S.C. § 218(a); 29 C.F.R. § 531.26.

Note, however, that no provision of the FLSA preempts a state law or municipal ordinance that provides greater benefit to employees. See 29 U.S.C. § 218(a) (copy enclosed).You state that your client runs a health club/fitness facility and explain the duties of the membership directors as enlisting members and selling them additional services.

Nothing in the FLSA or its regulations or interpretations overrides or nullifies any higher standards or more stringent provisions of such other laws. See 29 U.S.C. § 218(a); 29 C.F.R. § 531.26 (copies enclosed).