Free Trial / Sign Up Products / Prices / Samples About Us / Contact FAQs Home
Latest employment law cases 
Summaries and links to full text
LawMemo - First in Employment Law Emailed directly to you
and online all the time
Latest Cases Advanced Search Law Firm Directory Arbitrator Directory Law School Directory Legal Resources / Memos
Employment Law Memo
Arbitration Law Memo
NLRB Law Memo
Employment Low Blog
Arbitration Law Blog
Employment Law 101
Articles
Supreme Court Cases
EEOC Info
NLRB Info

LawMemo Employment Law Blog 
All Archives    |    All Archives By Topic 
Also read LawMemo Arbitration Blog


« Great customers | Main | WI - State law age discrimination claim was barred by "ministerial exception" (4-3) »

5th - FLSA doesn’t require paying recruitment, transportation, visa expenses for foreign guest workers
July 24, 2009 by Ross Runkel at LawMemo

Following Hurricane Katrina, Decatur Hotel in New Orleans brought in a number of workers from outside the United States. Daniel Castellanos-Contreras and other guest workers (holding H-2B visas) sued the hotel, their employer, asserting a claim for failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The trial court denied the employer’s summary judgment motion, granted Castellanos-Contreras’ summary judgment motion in part, and certified an order for interlocutory appeal. The 5th Circuit reversed and rendered judgment in the employer’s favor. Castellanos-Contreras v. Decatur Hotels (5th Cir 07/21/2009)

Castellanos-Contreras alleged that the employer violated the FLSA by refusing to reimburse him for recruitment, transportation, and visa costs incurred prior to his relocation to the United States for work, since payment of those expenses resulted in less than minimum wages for his work.

As a matter of first impression, the 5th Circuit held that (1) the FLSA applies to guest workers, but (2) the FLSA does not obligate an employer to reimburse such workers for recruitment, transportation, or visa expenses incurred prior to relocation.

The court rejected the argument that 29 USC Section 203(m) of the FLSA, or 29 CFR Section 531.35, requires employers to pay these expenses.

LawMemo.Com


EEOC | NLRB | Supreme CourtEmployment Law BlogArbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 
Google
 
Web www.LawMemo.com 
This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.