I Want To Dock My Employee’s Wages Because She Broke Her Laptop – Okay?

30 April 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Daniel A. Kaplan

The answer to this question depends – is the employee exempt or non-exempt? And, if non-exempt, will the deduction reduce her compensation below the minimum wage or affect her overtime compensation?

We live in a time where company-issued computer laptops and tablets are commonplace. It is also fairly certain that, at one time or another, an employee is going to spill his coffee or soda on that little device or drop it on the floor, causing the thing to go kaput.  When this tool of the trade stops working, if it was due to your employee’s conduct, can you deduct the costs of a replacement from his or her wages?

Under federal law – if the employee is exempt (i.e., not eligible for overtime compensation because she falls under one of the so-called white collar exemptions – administrative, executive or professional, or some other exemption) the answer is an emphatic NO.

The regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provide that in order to be exempt from the overtime requirements of the federal wage and hour law – the employee (typically) must be paid a salary that is not subject to deduction for the quality or quantity of work performed.  The same regulations expressly specify when deductions from an employee’s salary are permissible.  And another regulation provides that if a deduction that is not expressly authorized is taken, the deduction may cause the employer to lose the benefit of the exemption.

Deductions for “cash register shortages, damages or loss of company equipment” are not among those deductions that are expressly authorized, and the Department of Labor (DOL) has clearly stated that making deductions for this sort of employee conduct may result in the loss of the exemption.  The DOL has also stated that this same rationale applies to those instances in which an employer requires its exempt employee to pay for the tools necessary to do his or her job.

How about non-exempt employees who break their company-provided devices? Although a non-exempt employee is not generally paid a salary, an employer may not require him or her to reimburse the business for damaged or loss equipment, or to purchase the tools necessary to perform his or her job, if doing so would reduce the employee’s pay below the minimum wage for all hours worked, or would affect the employee’s overtime compensation (for example, by reducing the regular rate used in calculating the overtime premium).  According to a regulation under the FLSA, this would constitute an illegal kickback to the employer such that the employee is no longer receiving his or her wages “free and clear,” as is otherwise required by the wage law.

And remember, this is only according to the federal law; many state laws also prohibit these sorts of deductions or payment requirements. So, even if permissible under federal law (for example, for a non-exempt employee because it would not affect his or her receipt of pay above the minimum wage or overtime), state law may still prohibit this sort of conduct.  For example, in Wisconsin, employers are generally not permitted to make deductions due to poor workmanship, loss, theft, or damage to property.  Further, employers should be aware of the morale costs of deductions for true accidents.  And if your company inconsistently deducts for broken equipment – seeking reimbursement from some employees, but not from others, with no clear business justification – you also may be subject to a variety of discrimination claims.

So, if you are thinking about making a deduction from an employee for a damaged laptop or lost iPad – think again.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.