[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E588-E589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              COURT REPORTER FAIR LABOR AMENDMENTS OF 1995

                                 ______


                         HON. HARRIS W. FAWELL

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 14, 1995
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Barrett of 
Nebraska, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Hoekstra, and Mr. Christensen, in the 
introduction of the court reporter fair labor amendments of 1995. The 
Department of Labor [DOL] has adopted a position concerning the status 
of official court reporters under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] 
which, if allowed to stand, threatens State and local courts with 
explosive liability costs and could force them to take actions which 
would result in severe job losses and reduced income for thousands of 
court reporters.
  In most States, court reporters are typically employed by the State 
or local court with primary duties of taking down and reading back 
court proceedings. They are considered employees of the court and are 
typically compensated with an annual salary and benefits. While 
performing these duties, the court reporter--unless he or she falls 
within one of the FLSA's exemptions--is entitled to overtime 
compensation for work performed in that capacity in excess of 40 hours 
in a given work week.
  [[Page E589]] However, in addition to in-court duties, many court 
reporters prepare and certify transcripts of their stenographic records 
for private attorneys, litigants, and others. The court reporter 
collects a per-page fee for the transcripts and generally earns much 
more than he or she would for an hour of salaried work for the court. 
Very often, it is possible for a court reporter to earn more from 
transcription work than from his or her annual salary. When working for 
this per-page fee, the court reporter is clearly acting as an 
independent operator, as has been specifically determined by the 
Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. The fee income is treated as separate 
and apart from the annual government salary for taxation purposes. 
Indeed, court reporters file self-employment income forms with the IRS 
and pay self-employment taxes on this income.
  Unfortunately, DOL has not yet recognized the independent capacity of 
court reporters. In August 1994, the Wage and Hour Division took the 
position that, even while preparing transcripts for attorneys, 
litigants, and other parties, official court reporters in Oregon are 
still acting as employees of the court for purposes of FLSA. Similar 
letters have been received regarding official court reporters in 
Indiana and North Carolina. Official court reporters in the vast 
majority of States operate in circumstances similar to these three 
States.
  If allowed to stand, DOL's interpretation would require State and 
local courts to pay court reporters 1\1/2\ times their regular rate of 
pay for all transcription work performed during overtime hours in a 
given week. The DOL position threatens to dramatically impact State and 
local court budgets. The State and local courts will either have to 
increase their salary budgets or cut costs elsewhere. In return, they 
would receive nothing except additional administrative duties and 
headaches.
  Faced with possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of liability 
nationwide, State and local courts are considering dramatic changes in 
pay practices and in how transcription work is to be performed. 
Meanwhile, court reporters who continue to perform transcription work 
may be required to do it for substantially reduced compensation.
  This legislation would allow an exemption under the FLSA for official 
court reporters while they are performing transcription duties for a 
private party, provided there is an agreement between the court 
reporters and the State or local court employer. The legislation would 
also bar lawsuits by court reporters for overtime back-pay. I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure so that a law designed to protect 
workers will not instead lead to job losses and reductions in income.


                          ____________________