Question

Gabriela, as a condition of employment, signs an agreement authorizing GRG, Inc. to deduct, from earned wages, any cash shortages resulting from her work as a cashier. She files a charge through the Department of Labor arguing that, despite the agreed-upon wage deductions, that GRG, Inc. has violated her rights under the FLSA by imposing such requirements. She argues she should not be penalized due to her "inadvertence" or "negligence". She argues she did not intend to cause the loss to GRG, Inc.. Does her argument have merit? Does GRG, Inc. prevail? Why, why not

Answer 1

Gabriela's arguments do not have any merit and do not prevail and her charge against her employer GRG, Inc., for violation of her rights under the FLSA will be dismissed and held in favour of GRG, Inc., on three grounds:

1. Gabriela has signed an agreement authorizing GRG, Inc., to deduct, from earned wages, any cash shortages resulting from her work as a cashier. This clearly implies that Gabriela has agreed and accepted this condition/clause/provision in her employment contract/appointment order and therefore, is subject to and bound by such. An appointment order or employment contract is legally binding until and unless it is ultra vires the Constitution of the United States. In its present form, this employment contract between Gabriela and GG, Inc., is not found to be ultra vires and is therefore legally binding on Gabriella. Thus, Gabriela is fully aware of the consequences arising out of any cash shortages due to her negligence or inadvertence.

2. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a law mainly concerned and having jurisdiction over subjects like minimum wages, overtime pay eligibility, recordkeeping and child labor standards and is silent on such aspects of alleged violation by employers to deduct cash shortages as a result of negligence or inadvertence/oversight.

3. As a cashier it is the job duty and responsibility of Gabriela to take care and be cautious in her financial transactions and recordkeeping. She knows fully well about her responsibility which comes with her specialized cashier job and therefore cannot claim ignorance about her negligence or inadvertence due to any cash shortages/shortcomings and her defense of her action/s being unintentional is untenable. This is part of her performance and conduct measures and standards as expected by her employer GRG, Inc.