Client Alerts & Insights
DOL Curtails Practice Of Seeking Double Damages From Employers In Wage Investigations
June 29, 2020
Authored By:
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new guidance restricting when the government can seek liquidated damages, which double the amount owed by employers, to settle overtime and minimum wage investigations prior to filing a lawsuit in court.
The bulletin changes a practice started by the Obama Administration and continued under President Donald Trump to require employers to not only pay employees back wages owed for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) but also an amount equal to the back wages as a penalty to settle a dispute before an enforcement action is filed.
The DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) informed its staff on June 24 that it “will no longer pursue pre-litigation liquidated damages as its default policy from employers.” It also said that any request to pursue pre-litigation liquidated damages to settle a FLSA investigation “must be submitted to and approved by both the WHD Administrator and the Solicitor of Labor (or either of her designees) on an individual basis.”
Effective July 1, 2020, DOL will not assess pre-litigation liquidated damages if any one of the following circumstances exist:
- there is not clear evidence of bad faith and willfulness;
- the employer’s explanation for the violation(s) show that the violation(s) were the result of a bona fide dispute of unsettled law under the FLSA;
- the employer has no previous history of violations;
- the matter involves individual coverage only;
- the matter involves complex section 13(a)(1) and 13(b)(1) exemptions; or
- the matter involves State and local government agencies or other non-profits.
The move was prompted by President Trump’s recent executive order to remove regulatory and enforcement barriers that could stymie an economic recovery following COVID-19, the DOL said.
The new guidance is good news for employers that had been previously given a choice to pay liquidated damages to settle WHD cases or fight the claims in court where it would incur litigation costs and still face the possibility of paying double damages.
It is also good news for employees. According to the DOL, “These efforts should ensure that those employers who genuinely work to understand their obligations under the FLSA and are generally in compliance, and who elect cooperatively to resolve alleged violations without litigation and, therefore, return unpaid wages to workers expeditiously, are not also saddled with doubled damages designed for the litigation context that might jeopardize the ongoing existence of these employers and, as a result, the jobs of American workers.”
For more information on this alert, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden | ebaisden@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4676
Rick Hepp | rhepp@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4657
Latest News
IEEPA Tariff Refunds Challenged in Court – Q&A for Supply Chains
Many of our clients have filed declarations to receive International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) tariff refunds for “Phase 1” of the new refund process. Some have already received those funds. Recent Department of Justice (“DOJ”) actions between June 2 and June 9, 2026, raise questions about the viability of this administrative process for duty refunds beyond those allowed in Phase 1.
Versata v. Ford: Federal Circuit Reinstates $82M Award and Opens Door to Even Greater Damages
Recently, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Michigan’s ruling that Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) misappropriated Versata Software Inc.’s (“Versata”) trade secrets and breached a software licensing agreement. The three-judge panel ordered a new trial on trade secret damages, finding that the lower court improperly limited available damages theories, and reinstated the jury’s $82.3 million award from Ford’s breach of the software licensing agreement.
UPDATED: The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.
Tariff Refund Litigation: A Primer on Common Plaintiff’s Theories of Recovery and Importer of Record Defenses
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump did not have constitutional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump Administration responded quickly, implementing a universal 10 percent surcharge under the authority of Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act.