Benefits November 29, 2004

Restaurateur Settles FLSA Violation Charges

November 29, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A Utah-based restaurant co-owner has settled both civil and criminal charges over violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Reported by

Lily Lei, co-owner of the China Lily Restaurant in Sandy, Utah, has pleaded guilty to a criminal misdemeanor for willful violations of federal overtime regulations, according to HR.BLR.com. She will now be on twelve months probation, as well as owing 120 hours of community service. The charges being settled asserted that Lei made numerous false statements and provided falsified records indicating that some employees had been paid back wages when in fact they had received nothing of the sort.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The Department of Labor (DoL) had also filed a civil suit against Lei that has now settled. Lei has signed a consent judgment that will require her and the restaurant to pay a total of over $42,000 in overtime back pay and interest to 27 employees, according to HR.BLR.com. She has also agreed to abide by the FLSA in the future. In a separate agreement, Lei and the restaurant have agreed to pay almost $18,000 in penalties for willful and repeated violations of the federal statute.

These settlements are the end result of a 33-month investigation by the DoL, according to HR.BLR.com.

Compliance November 24, 2004

RI Court Rules Husband Must Pay Ex-Wife Pension Benefits While Still Working

November 24, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Rhode Island Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court ruling by ordering a husband to pay his ex-wife retirement benefits even though he has not yet retired.
Reported by

>In a 1994 property settlement agreement – which was incorporated but not merged into a final divorce decree – Paul Andrukiewicz agreed to pay his ex-wife Georgia $583 every month after his “normal retirement date.” The date was March 1, 1996, which for the husband’s plan was after 20 years of service. Mr. Andrukiewicz, however, elected to continue working after his retirement date, and did not pay his ex-wife the benefits.

>Because the agreement was not merged into the decree of divorce, it retained the characteristics of a contract, according to the ruling. Writing the opinion for the court, Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg stated that the language was “clear and unambiguous” regarding the normal retirement date. While the husband asserted that “normal” meant when he chose to retire, the state Supreme Court confirmed the lower court’s ruling that “normal” could only mean when most people in the plan retired, which was after 20 years of service.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

>The lower court had awarded the plan participant’s ex-wife $56,877 in arrears and interest, and ordered the husband to commence payment of the monthly benefits to his wife. The Supreme Court upheld this decision.

>The case, Andrukiewicz v. Andrukiewicz, RI, No. 2002-395, is available at http://www.courts.state.ri.us/supreme/pdf-files/02-395.pdf .

«