Kirchoff v. Wipro, Inc.
894 F. Supp. 2d 1346
W.D. Wash.2012Background
- Wipro is a Delaware corporation with HQ in East Brunswick, NJ and employs hundreds in Washington and thousands nationwide, providing technology consulting services.
- Kirchoff was hired as a Senior Manager at a $140,000 annual salary and worked from July 26, 2010, to January 27, 2011, when he was terminated.
- The dispute concerns whether Wipro prorated Kirchoff’s first and last-week salaries using an improper formula under wage-and-hour laws.
- Wipro used a Pay Period method based on work days to calculate the prorated salary for the disputed periods, which Kirchoff claims underpays him.
- Kirchoff contends 29 C.F.R. § 778.113(b) requires the Work Week method for salaried employees in the first and last weeks, and he cites monthly/semi-monthly versus weekly salary issues.
- The court granted summary judgment for Wipro, ruling the Pay Period method complies with FLSA and WA MWA interpretations as applied here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Pay Period method compliant with FLSA for first/last week pay? | Kirchoff argues Work Week method is mandated. | Wipro argues Pay Period is permissible under FLSA and 541.602(c). | Yes, Pay Period is permissible. |
| Does 29 C.F.R. § 778.113(b) control this dispute? | Kirchoff says regulation dictates Work Week method. | Regulation concerns overtime; not controlling here. | Not controlling for first/last-week calculation. |
| Does the proportionality requirement force a fixed constant k? | Kirchoff advocates y = kx with fixed k. | Regulations allow multiple methods; proportionality based on actual days worked. | Multiple methods allowed; Pay Period valid. |
| Are state law claims aligned with FLSA guidance on prorating? | Kirchoff contends WA MWA prohibits the Pay Period method. | WAC 296-128-532(3)(e) permits prorating in first/last week; no willful withholding. | Wipro did not violate WA MWA; WAGE REBATE Act claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drinkwitz v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 140 Wash.2d 291 (Wash. 2000) (MWA guidance from FLSA )
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts; summary judgment standard)
- Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (U.S. 2006) (summary judgment/standard principles)