The code of this case is 29 USC 216(b). This code is not a violation code, it’s a citation and enforcement by the department of labor to the department of justice to enforce the employer to pay the social security benefits to employees and legal fees to the department of labor’s attorney. The federal government has no jurisdiction over this code. Only the department of labor has the authority to enforce this code.

 

Figure: Mario Batali)

 


Read the Article


 

According to the ‘Fair Labor Standard Act 1938’, the employer must violate 29 U.S.C.A. 206, 207 and 29 U.S.C. 255. After the audit, the department of labor will have to identify the violation and circulate all the potential employees from the audit and get the consent of those are willing to participate in the class-action lawsuit against the employer. Then the department of labor will have to get the consent in order to proceed to file the summons and complaints to enforce the 29 U.S.C.A. 216 (a), (b), (c), (d). Only then the court now has the jurisdiction to enforce the law.

However, Mario Batali was forced to settle his lawsuit by the attorneys and the court because of his fame. Thousands of employers harassed every year across the country because of this type of scheme. To read the article, click below.


Summons and Complaint


Amended Summons and Complaint


 

 

The consent that the plaintiff’s attorney provided is not valid, because of the fact that it has been written and signed without the involvement of the department of labor and 29 U.S.C.A. 216 (b). According to the labor law, the department of labor shall conduct an audit to find the violation of 29 U.S.C.A. 206, 207 and 255. Prior to determining the violation of those codes, a lawsuit shall not be filed to the federal court. However, here in Mario Batali’s case law was never applied. Therefore, this lawsuit is a scheme.

 


Summary Judgment


 

According to the summary judgment, the court has granted the plaintiff’s demand which discloses the name of the potential opt-in plaintiff’s name, addresses, telephone, and social security numbers which led the plaintiff’s attorney to conduct scam. The law also doesn’t allow the court to order the defendants to disclose the name and other contact details to the plaintiffs. By giving such an order, the court has violated 14 amendments rights of the defendants (Mr. Mario Batali, Mr. Joseph Bastianich, and their corporation Pasta Resourses, Inc.). There were no violations of 29 U.S.C.A. 216 (a,b,c,d) and the judge has misinterpreted the law.

 

 

The casualties are high of the wrong summary judgment for Mr. Mario Batali, who later leaves the restaurant business to his former partner Mr. Joe. Read the full news here.

 


Fair Labor Standards Act: Definition of “Companionship services”


Fair Labor Standards Act


The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides a national minimum hourly wage (29 U.S.C. § 206), mandatory overtime compensation (29 U.S.C. §  207), and restrictions on the employment of minors (29 U.S.C. § 212). The FLSA also requires employers to maintain accurate employee records in accordance with the Act’s provisions (29 U.S.C. § 211). To ensure employer compliance with these requirements, both civil and criminal sanctions were provided. Section 215 of Title 29, United States Code, lists the prohibited acts under the FLSA. Section 216(a) of Title 29, United States Code, provides a criminal misdemeanor penalty for willful violations of 29 U.S.C. § 215. Imprisonment up to six (6) months for each offense may be imposed only upon a second or subsequent conviction for an offense under the Act.

 

Section 216(b) of Title 29 provides for an employer’s civil liability for violations of 29 U.S.C. § 215. Broad injunctive relief to curtail any practice which would constitute a violation of section 215 or to obtain remedial action is available under Section 217 of Title 29, United States Code. Where an employer consistently violates a decree or consent judgment, or where the FLSA violations are sufficiently aggravated, criminal sanctions can be pursued under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or 29 U.S.C. § 216. Following conviction under 29 U.S.C. §  216(a) for a monetary violation, it is suggested that restitution be pursued as a part of the criminal sentence.


Companionship services


 

The Final Rule narrowed the definition of “companionship services” to ensure that FLSA protections apply to most workers who provide home care services. 78 Fed. Reg. 60,459, 60,463-73. As of the effective date of the Final Rule, January 1, 2015, “companionship services” means the provision of “fellowship” and “protection.” 78 Fed. Reg. 60,557 (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. § 552.6). “Fellowship” means “to engage the person in social, physical, and mental activities, such as conversation, reading, games, crafts, or accompanying the person on walks, on errands, to appointments, or to social events.” Id. “Protection” means “to be present with the person in his or her home or to accompany the person when outside of the home to monitor the person’s safety and well-being.” Id. Companionship services can also include the provision of “care” if the care is provided “attendant to and in conjunction with the provision of fellowship and protection and if it does not exceed 20 percent of the total hours worked per person and per workweek.” Id. In this context, “care” means assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs), “such as dressing, grooming, feeding, bathing, toileting, and transferring” and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), “such as meal preparation, driving, light housework, managing finances, assistance with the physical taking of medications, and arranging medical care.” Id companionship services do not include “domestic services performed primarily for the benefit of other members of the household,” nor “the performance of medically related services” for the consumer. Id. “Medically related services” are services that “typically require and are performed by trained personnel, such as registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, or certified nursing assistants” regardless of the actual training or occupational title of the provider.

 

Therefore, whether a provider employed solely by a consumer in a shared living arrangement that occurs in the consumer’s private home is entitled to FLSA protections will depend on the tasks she performs for the consumer. For example, a provider who helps a consumer bathe and dress each morning, prepares the consumer’s meals, and assists the consumer with preparing for bed in the evening and does not provide other services is not providing companionship services and therefore is performing domestic service employment that is subject to FLSA protections. Similarly, a provider who provides daily assistance with tube feeding is providing medically related services, and therefore, regardless of her other duties, her work does not fall within the companionship services exemption. On the other hand, a provider whose only responsibility is to spend nights at the residence in case of emergencies is providing companionship services in a given workweek if: (1) the provider does not spend more than 20 percent of her work hours assisting the consumer with ADLs and IADLs and does not perform medically related services and (2) the provider is not an employee of a third-party entity, such as a public or private agency administering the program through which the shared living arrangement was developed. If those two conditions are met, the provider need not be paid in compliance with the FLSA.

 

Interpretation No-2014-1 under Fair Labor Standards Act


Analyzing the Latest Risks of Worker Misclassification


Read Here

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Hi! Welcome to harryshomecare.com!

Thanks for visting us! Stay updated by subscribing to the RSS feed.

Log In