Bella Capelli Academy Robinson Time Fitness Inc Employment Law Case Discussion I need to answer the attached case study. Instructions are attached which as

Bella Capelli Academy Robinson Time Fitness Inc Employment Law Case Discussion I need to answer the attached case study. Instructions are attached which ask for 3 pages of wokr on this. Employment Law Case Study Grading Rubric
Employment Law Case Study Questions
1. Description of the facts in this case in order of priority.
2. What are the issues that the individual is facing?
3. What are the probable underlying root causes to these problems?
4. Based on your reading, class lectures, discussions and your own research – what
recommendations do you have for the organization in the future, to ensure that this issue(s) does
not arise again?
The case study should be at least two pages, 12-point font.
Each category is rated on the following rubric, for a total of 20 points.
1= Very poor
2 = Poor
3 = Adequate
4 = Good
5 = Excellent
Student Name: _______________________________________________________
Assigned Case Study: Amy Baden-Winterwood, et al. v. Life Time Fitness (1)
Due Date: July 19th, 2020
Item
1. Proficiency, Knowledge, Understanding, and Research DepthClear Summary of the case. Supports summary with specific
examples and theories from Course Book, and other credible
sources. Shows a well-developed depth and understanding of the
case.
2. Organization, formulation, logic, and identification of key
points- Paper is organized, points are distinct, and information is
logically sequenced and key points are made obvious. Word choice
and sentence structure are suitable for graduate level work.
Composition and punctuation issues are rare. Superior use of
references and citations and/or solid usage of the APA style. Paper
meets or exceeds assignment word or page requirements.
3. Conclusion(s) are precise and well writtenEffective recommendations, solutions, and/or plans of action were
provided.
Specific data or facts were referred when necessary to support the
analysis and conclusions.
4. Research/References- Multiple sources are cited (not just basic
texts), including published journal articles. Citations are in proper
format according to the journal’s author instructions.
Total Score: ________ (sum of Items 1-4)
Comments:
Score
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Individual Assignment
Textbook Case 19.4, p. 450-453. The assignment will consist of about 1,500 words (no strict
word requirement) and address the following:
a. Describe the background of the case and court case summary
b. Answer case questions in a separate paragraph/section for each question. Use
appropriate headings for each question according to APA.
d. Include title page, introductory, and closing paragraphs. Main ideas need to be
supported with research for each section (background and court case summary and for
each case question. Sources cited and listed in a separate reference page.
Search Google Scholar (Do not use Google) and find documents to support your answers. Write
in third person (no I, you, or we). Use APA format, double space paper, and use headings. See
grading rubric (in Assignments) for specific expectations for grading assignment.
hrase “subject to,
practice of salary
mmunicates a sig-
Chapter 19 Wage and Hour Regulation 453
For the preceding reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the district court’s decision bifurcating the
class period, finding that violations occurred in November and December of 2005, and limiting
$541.603 overtime compensation to those three pay periods. However, the Court REVERSES the
district court insofar as it found that the pre-August 23, 2004, compensation plan did not create
a substantial likelihood of deductions. The Court, therefore, concludes that Life Time Fitness
is liable for overtime compensation to those Plaintiffs employed and subject to the corporate
bonus-pay plan from January 1, 2004, to August 23, 2004.
basis test to pay
Is occurring after
gulations do not
After the proper
2004, represents
Case Commentary
The Sixth Circuit decided to require Lifetime Fitness to pay the workers overtime pay up to the
date wherein the Department of Labor changed the salary basis test.
such, S 541.603
ted employees
ore than create
nich Life Time
plan targeted
mula whereby
upancy $ per-
heen
Case Questions
1. Are you in accord with the court’s decision?
2. Do you believe the Department of Labor’s regulation, which changed the salary-basis test,
is justified?
3. What would be an ethical resolution to this case?
Case 19.5
ployment Regulation
both of which are relevant here.
nificant likelihood of deductions.
For our purposes, the salary-basis test has two interpretations of the phrase “subject to,”
Thus, an employee is not paid on a salary basis if (1) there is an actual practice of salary
deductions or if (2) an employee is compensated under a policy that clearly communicates a sig
Today, we decide that the proper approach is to apply Auer’s salary-basis test to pay
periods occurring before August 23, 2004, and to apply S 541.603 to pay periods occurring after
the same, $ 541.603’s effective date. Plaintiffs correctly point out that DOL regulations do not
As to the post-August 23, 2004, period, the DOL’s new regulations apply. After the proper
notice and comment period, S 541.603, which became effective on August 23, 2004, represents
apply retroactively.
the DOL’s current interpretation and implementation of the salary-basis test. As such, S 541.603
controls and is applicable to pay periods occurring after August 23, 2004.
Here, Life Time Fitness’s pre-August 23, 2004, compensation plan subjected employees
pay to reductions under the Auer test. The compensation plan at issue does more than create
a theoretical possibility of deduction; instead it plainly lays out a policy under which Life Time
Fitness would make future deductions. First, Life Time Fitness’s compensation plan targeted
specific members of management. Second, the policy set out a particularized formula whereby
Plaintiffs’ pay would be in jeopardy: If, during the year, YTD EBITDA Before Occupancy $ per-
formance drops below the minimum performance level of 80% of plan, and payments have been
made in previous months, Life Time Fitness reserves the right to reclaim the amount of previous
payments by reducing future semi-monthly guarantee payments.
Life Time Fitness took affirmative steps to demonstrate that the pay-deduction plan would
be enforced: Life Time Fitness organized a Performance Pay Committee, which oversaw the ad-
ministration of the corporate bonus plans, monitored performance levels, and ultimately deter-
mined when deductions would be made. Moreover, at least one company official testified that
Life Fitness employees were keenly aware that Life Time Fitness would take deductions from
their guaranteed pay if an employees’ performance dropped below certain benchmarks.
Thus, it was clear to the Plaintiffs, and those in charge of compensation, that pay was sub-
ject to deduction under the compensation plans at issue here.
Lastly, Life Time Fitness did indeed take actual deductions from Plaintiffs’ salaries not long
after employees stopped meeting their performance goals. While these deductions fell outside the
time period governed by Auer (January 1, 2004 through August 23, 2004), there is no reason that
this Court cannot consider those later deductions to be relevant in analyzing whether the com-
pensation plan creates a significant likelihood” of deductions. We find the actual deductions
from Plaintiffs’ guaranteed pay in 2005 support the conclusion that Plaintiffs pay was “subject to
reduction” under Life Time Fitness’s 2004 corporate bonus-pay plan.
For the above reasons, this Court reverses the district court and concludes that Life Time
Fitness’s compensation plan satisfies Auer’s subject-to-reduction test for the period January 1,
2004 through August 23, 2004. Therefore, for this time period, Plaintiffs were not exempt from
the FLSA’s overtime requirements, and Life Time Fitness is liable for overtime for all Plaintiffs
subject to a corporate bonus-pay plan from January 1, 2004, through August 23, 2004.
argue
The Post-August 23, 2004, Period
Here, Plaintiffs argue, again, that the district court erred in finding that $ 541.603 and its “actual
deduction” requirement supplanted the Auer test. Having dealt with this issue previously, and
because the DOL has ample authority to issue new regulations after the requisite notice-and-
comment period, we conclude that Plaintiffs argument fails.
Plaintiffs
in 2005, rather than granting overtime to all Plaintiffs for the entire post-August 23, 2004, claim
period. Here, again, Plaintiffs’ claims are flawed. To the extent that we are considering only the
post-August 23, 2004, salary-basis test, when actual deductions were made, $ 541.603(b) and its
implementing regulations explain that “the exemption is lost during the time period in which the
improper deductions were made for employees in the same job classification working for the same
that the district court erred in limiting recovery to the three pay periods
managers responsible for the actual improper deductions. Therefore, the district court properly
determined that only Plaintiffs who worked in the appropriate job classification during the relevant
deduction period were entitled to overtime compensation under $ 541.603 after August, 23, 2004
.
covered them during their employment with Defendant, under which Defendant reserved the
year-to-date basis, and the fact that such deductions were made from eight Plaintiffs as set forth
Chapter 19 Wage
less frequent, basis a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s
the quality or quantity of the work performed.
compensation, which amount is not subject to reductions because of variations in
Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that language in certain corporate bonus-pay plans which
below), was inconsistent with the salary-basis test.
Corporate Bonus-Pay Plans
During
the periods of time for which each Plaintiff was covered by a corporate bonus-pay plan,
he or she generally was paid a pre-determined amount of compensation, identified by Life Time
Fitness as base salary, on a semi-monthly basis. In addition to base salary, each Plaintiff was
eligible to receive monthly bonus payments based on year-to-date performance according to
guidelines set forth in his or her corporate bonus-pay plan.
Plaintiffs’ 2004 corporate bonus-pay plans contained the following language: “If, during
the year, YTD EBITDA Before Occupancy $ performance drops below the minimum perform-
ance level of 80% of plan, and payments have been made in previous months, then Life Time
Fitness reserves the right to reclaim the amount of previous payments by reducing future semi-
monthly guarantee payments.”
No Plaintiff had his or her base salary reduced in 2004 to recover earlier bonus overpayments.
Across three pay dates in November and December 2005—namely, November 9, November
23, and December 9—a total of 8 Plaintiffs had their base salaries reduced to recover some of the
amounts of unearned bonus overpayments they had received earlier in the year.
Effective January 1, 2006, Defendant altered its corporate bonus-pay plans to implement
a 20% hold back “bank,” which Defendant designed to protect the corporation from bonus
overpayments on a year-to-date basis. Defendant revised Plaintiffs’ 2004 and 2005 corporate
bonus-pay plans to provide that “[o]n a YTD basis if the amount of At Risk Pay or Performance
Pay earned is less than the amount paid, Life Time Fitness Inc. reserves the right to reclaim the
amount of overpayment by reducing the 20% monthly hold-back and if necessary future semi-
monthly base salary payments. On an annual basis, in no case will the Guarantee Pay be lowered.
Life Time Fitness claims that employees in Plaintiffs’ positions are exempt from the FLSA’s
overtime provisions under the “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity”
exemption. Under the FLSA regulations, an employee’s position must satisfy three tests to qualify
for this exemption: (1) a duties test; (2) a salary-level test; and (3) a salary-basis test.
The issue before this Court is whether Plaintiffs’ compensation plans satisfy the salary-
basis test. Prior to August 23, 2004, the salary-basis test, as defined by regulation, provided:
>>
An employee will be considered to be paid “on a salary basis” within the meaning of
the regulations if under his employment agreement he regularly receives each pay
period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all
or part of his compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of
variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.
In August 2004, the DOL updated the regulations defining the salary-basis test. The new
regulation states:
An employee will be considered to be paid on a “salary basis” within the meaning of
these regulations if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or
compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in
ee’s
less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employ-
the quality or quantity of the work performed. ($ 541.603)
Life Time Fitness bears the burden of proving that Plaintiffs were paid: (1) a predetermined
formed. Notably, however, rather than include the term “employment agreement, the updated
amount, which (2) was not subject to reduction (3) based on quality or quantity of work per-
regulations focus on pay received.
tional, would that relieve
prove
the insurer of liability?
3. Did the school board act ethically?
monthly
Life Time Fitnes
overtime provisions ur
exemption. Under the E
for this exemption: (1)
The issue before
basis test. Prior to Aug
Case 19.4 Amy Baden-Winterwood, et al. v. Life Time Fitness, Inc.
566 F.3d 618; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10461 (U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit)
The issue is whether the employees are entitled to overtime compensation.
COLE, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
An employee wil
the regulations i
period on a wee
or part of his ca
variations in the
In August 2004
regulation states:
Plaintiffs are current or former employees of Life Time Fitness, a Minneapolis corporation that
owns and operates approximately sixty health and fitness centers throughout the United States.
Plaintiffs claim that defendant’s method of compensating Plaintiffs was not consistent with
the salary-basis test, and, thus, Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiffs were not exempt from the over-
time provisions of the FLSA during the pay period falling within the limitations period, and thus
are entitled to overtime for hours worked over forty for each week during said limitations period,
whatever said limitations period is determined to be. Defendant contends that its pay plan at all
times complied with the FLSA and that Plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime for any pay period
during their employment with Defendant. In the alternative, Defendant contends that to the
extent any Plaintiffs are entitled to overtime, such liability period is limited to the period of time
during which actual deductions occurred from Plaintiffs’ salaries.
The [FLSA’s] salary-basis test provides, in part:
An employee wi
these regulation
less frequent ba
ee’s compensati
the quality or qy
Life Time Fitnes
amount, which (2) w
An employee will be considered to be paid on a “salary basis” within the meaning of
these regulations if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or
formed. Notably, how
regulations focus on

Purchase answer to see full
attachment