Fair Labor Standards Act: Filing a Claim for Unpaid Overtime

Fair Labor Standards Act: Filing a Claim for Unpaid Overtime

The Fair Labor Standards Act, commonly abbreviated as FLSA, entitles most employees working in the U.S. to unbiased and non-discriminatory labor practices that include the federal-wide regulation of wages. Unfortunately, there are many employers that commit wage policy violations in order to cut corners and save revenue. As an employee, if this happens to you, there are several legal options you can consider. One of them is to file a claim for unpaid overtime wages within the appointed statute of limitations.

In order to receive the unpaid wages owed to you, a claim must be filed to the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor within two years from the date of your employer’s violation. However, the FLSA extends this 2-year period and gives employees an extra year if it can be found that the employer had willfully withheld overtime wages. In some states, the basic statute of limitations is at three years.

Filing an overtime claim requires you to provide details regarding your employer and the details of the position you hold with them. They will need information on your job title and the duties that come with it, as well as the particulars of how you are paid and at what rate. They might also ask about certain deductions that are made in your paycheck for things like taxes, social security, and health insurance.  In order to provide accurate information, you must be able to keep track of all the irregularities between your paycheck and the hours you’ve worked.

Take note that filing a claim with the Department of Labor is completely different from pursuing a lawsuit against your employer, although you can enlist the help of an overtime pay lawyer to help you accomplish both. In most instances, taking your claim to court is the best course of action after your original petition has been denied.

 

Read More

Standards Observed by Austin Courts when Determining Child Conservatorship

In determining the issue of child custody during a divorce case state courts have the same primary consideration: the best interest of the child. In Title 5 Sec. 153.002 of the Texas Family Code, this same consideration is stipulated: “The best interest of the child shall always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child.”

A child’s best interest, according to the court, however, does not mean what the child wants, it is rather what the court deems is best for him/her.

When determining conservatorship or custodianship (of a child), the overarching standards of Austin courts, according to Austin child custody lawyers of Kirker Davis LLP, include: (i) assurance that the child will have frequent and continuing contact with parents who have shown the ability to act in the best interest of the child; (ii) provision of a safe, stable, and non-violent environment for the child; and, (iii) encouragement of parents to share in the rights and duties of raising their child (even after the parents have separated or have had their marriage dissolved).

Due to the fact that the issue of conservatorship, when settled in court, can be emotionally draining, besides being contentious (between the spouses) and legally complex, courts, therefore, encourage divorcing spouses to find ways that will allow them to work together in order for them to arrive at an amicable agreement regarding child custody. Failure to come to agreeable terms will result to their divorce case needing to be filed in court. If this happens, settling the conservatorship issue will be left to the family court judge whose decision on who will be the child’s custodian, will be legal and binding whether this decision is acceptable to all concerned (the spouses and the child himself/herself).

While a child, upon reaching the age of 12, can sign a “Choice of Managing Conservator” document to petition the courts to make or alter its original decision regarding conservatorship, this does not mean that the courts will grant his/her preferred living arrangements as this may be contrary to what the courts see to be in his/her best interest.

Read More