Category Archives: Overtime Pay

DOL Announces Long-Awaited Proposed OT Rule

Contributed by Carlos Arévalo and Sara Zorich, March 11, 2019

Overtime – blue binder in the office

As a follow up to our March 4th blog, three days later the DOL announced a proposed OT rule increasing the minimum salary required for an employee to qualify for exemption from federal overtime pay requirements. The proposed increase in salary level is from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $679 per week ($35,308 annually). In addition, the proposed rule includes the following changes: 

  • The proposal increases the total annual compensation requirement for “highly compensated employees” from the currently-enforced level of $100,000 to $147,414 per year (note, this overtime exemption is not applicable in Illinois as it was not adopted by the Illinois Minimum Wage Law);
  • A commitment to periodic review to update the salary threshold, but not an automatic adjustment as was the case with the 2016 proposed rule. Updates would continue to require notice-and-comment rulemaking;
  • A special salary level for Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a separate special salary level for American Samoa and an updated special weekly “base rate” for the motion picture producing industry; and
  • Allowing employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) that are paid annually or more frequently to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level, which was also part of the 2016 proposed rule. (Note, the proposed rule would allow a one-time yearly catch up payment if the employee does not earn the anticipated bonuses. The proposed rule states that as long as an employer pays 90% of the standard level ($611.10) and if at the end of the 52-week period the salary paid plus the nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) paid does not equal the standard salary level for 52 weeks ($35,308), the employer would have one pay period to make up for the shortfall (up to 10 percent of the standard salary level, $3,530.80).) 

There were no changes to overtime protections for police officers, firefighters, paramedics or nurses. There were also no changes impacting laborers including non-management production-line or non-management employees in maintenance, construction and related occupations.   

Most notably, the proposed rule stayed away from any changes to the job duties test.  We anticipate legal challenges to the proposed rule may be lodged by both the business community and employee rights groups as this rulemaking is a significant change from the current law and a deviation from the 2016 proposed rule.  Employers will have 60 days to submit comments to the DOL. Once the comments are considered, the DOL will issue and publish a final rule. In light of the proposed rule, we encourage employers to begin examining how it might impact them. This includes review of applicable state law as employers are required to comply with whichever law is most favorable to employees. We will be available to address any concerns or questions you may have.  And as always, we will keep an eye on any other developments and will keep you updated. 

Will We See New Federal Overtime Rules in March?

Contributed by Carlos Arévalo, March 4, 2019

Last Fall, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it intended to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in March 2019 regarding the salary levels applicable to the executive, administrative and professional exemptions that exclude certain employees from the coverage of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime provisions. The DOL has been reviewing the regulations at 29 CFR 541, which implement the exemptions, and is expected to seek public comment on the salary level before issuing a final rule.

Of course, we all recall the most recent final rule on the subject. The Obama administration’s final rule, announced on May 23, 2016, would have increased the minimum salary level for exempt employees from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $913 per week ($47,476 annually). This rule was challenged in the latter part of 2016 in the Eastern District of Texas. U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant blocked the rule’s December 1, 2016, implementation when he issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (21 states and over 50 business organizations). In his ruling, Judge Mazzant noted that the DOL exceeded “its delegated authority and ignore[d] Congress’ intent by raising the minimum salary level such that it supplants the duties test.” He also added that the Supreme Court routinely strikes down “agency interpretations that clearly exceed a permissible interpretation based on the plain language of the statute, particularly if they have a great economic or political significance.” The appeal of Judge Mazzant’s ruling was dismissed in September 2017.

Based on current Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta’s comments that the jump to $47,476 was excessive, it has been expected that the DOL’s NPRM would propose an updated salary level test of somewhere between $30,000 and $35,000. 

At this time, there is nothing employers need to do. And while it could be months, perhaps even longer, before a new final rule is issued, we expect that the current salary level will be increased. At this rate, though, the salary levels may once again become an issue in the next presidential election. Whatever happens, stay tuned – we will keep an eye on any action by the DOL and will keep you updated!

High Court Says No More Narrow Construction Standard for FLSA Exemptions

Contributed by Sara Zorich and Michael Hughes, April 13, 2018

wage and hour

Scale weighing money and time

On April 2, 2018 in the matter of Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362, 2018 WL 1568025 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2018), the Supreme Court rejected the long held principle that exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) should be construed narrowly and found that car dealership service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held there was no reason or basis under the FLSA to narrowly interpret FLSA exemptions and that exemptions should be read equally as any other provision of the Act.

Impact – Car dealerships can confidently rely on Encino Motorcars to support their classification of service advisors as exempt from federal overtime. While this decision doesn’t impact service advisors working outside of a car dealership, the 7(i) exemption is still in play.

However, this decision is much more far reaching in its overall impact on FLSA exemptions. Encino Motorcars is a WIN for employers who for decades have had to overcome court and DOL-imposed heightened standards when applying the FLSA overtime exemptions. This decision should make it easier for employers to establish the applicability of an FLSA exemption if challenged by an employee.

Déjà Vu All Over Again? DOL Appeals Overtime Rule

Contributed by JT Charron, December 1, 2017

At this time last year, employers across the country were preparing for implementation of the DOL Final Overtime Rule, which would have more than doubled the minimum salary level for exempt employees. At the eleventh hour, employers were granted a reprieve when the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas temporarily halted implementation, which was subsequently made permanent in August of this year.

In the interim, a presidential election occurred. And with the change in administration came uncertainty about what—if any—action the DOL would take regarding the now-defunct overtime regulations. We began to get answers following Alexander Acosta’s appointment as Secretary of Labor. Since his confirmation hearing in March Acosta has repeatedly stated that—while the jump to $47,476 was excessive—the salary level test should be increased to somewhere between $30,000 and $35,000.

In July, the DOL followed up on Acosta’s comments by issuing a request for information (RFI) regarding the overtime exemptions. The RFI sought responses to eleven sets of questions pertaining to the overtime exemptions, including questions regarding whether annual indexing of the salary test would be appropriate and the impact on the wages of exempt employees caused by the anticipation of the 2016 Final Rule. The comment period ended on September 25, 2017, with the DOL receiving over 200,000 comments.

On October 30, 2017, the DOL filed its appeal of the Texas court’s decision to permanently block the overtime rule. That appeal has been stayed while the DOL develops new overtime regulations. To be sure, the DOL is appealing this decision for one reason—to preserve its authority to revise the salary level test. In both its earlier decisions, the District Court repeatedly emphasized that the duties—not salary level—test should control the determination of exempt positions.

In its August 31 decision the Court attempted to clarify, in a footnote, that it was “not making any assessments regarding the general lawfulness of the salary-level test or the Departments authority to implement such a test.” However, the broad language used elsewhere in the opinion, is difficult to square with this narrow holding. In fact, in its appeal of the preliminary injunction—which was later dismissed as moot—the DOL asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to “address only the threshold legal question of the Department’s statutory authority to set a salary level, without addressing the specific salary level set by the 2016 final rule.” We expect the DOL to take a similar stance in the instant appeal.

What’s Next

There is nothing employers need to do at this point. The DOL is currently reviewing the comments it received in response to its RFI, after which it will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. Following that notice there will be a comment period prior to the issuance of any new regulations. Although it could be months—or years—before we see any new regulations, we fully expect that the current salary level will be increased, the only question is by how much. Stayed tuned – we will keep an eye on any action by the DOL and will keep you updated!

Court Lays Out Guidance for Ensuring Hourly Workers Are Paid for Off-Duty Work

Contributed by Steven Jados, October 11, 2017

Wage-Hour2

Addressing an employment issue of interest in an increasingly digital world, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over lower federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin­­) recently upheld a prior ruling that the City of Chicago was not liable for paying wages for certain employees’ off-duty work time.

In the case of Allen v. City of Chicago, employees who alleged they were not compensated for off-duty work performed on their mobile devices were not entitled to recovery for that unscheduled, overtime work. Agreeing with the trial court’s decision that the City was not aware of the overtime work, and that the employees were not prevented or discouraged from reporting off-duty work time and seeking pay, the court ruled that the City should not be held liable.

In the decision, the court stated that the City would have been liable for unpaid wages it knew or should have known about the work at issue through the exercise of “reasonable diligence.” Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employer must pay for all work it knew or should have known was being performed. Moreover, an employer is considered to have knowledge of the work if it should have known about it through the exercise of reasonable diligence. The court’s decision further illustrates and offers guidance on how employers can exercise such reasonable diligence:

For instance, it is important that employers institute a method by which any time worked outside of the normal business day can be reported in order to be compensated. In this case, the court found that the City of Chicago exercised diligence by allowing employees to submit “time due slips” on which they listed their off-duty hours worked along with a brief, albeit vague, description of the work performed.

Employers should also establish a reasonable policy and process for employees to report uncompensated work time after noticing a shortfall in pay. Such a process might involve an employee handbook provision that instructs employees to carefully review their paychecks, every pay period, to ensure that the paycheck accurately reflects all time actually worked. The handbook should also instruct employees to contact human resources or another appropriate member of management if a paycheck is short.

Lastly, in order to avoid landing on the wrong side of a legal decision, employers must take employee complaints under such a policy seriously by thoroughly investigating and adjusting compensation due when it is determined that there is a shortfall in the employee’s pay.

Bottom Line: Bearing all of this in mind, especially in the modern workplace, employers that have hourly employees who check e-mail, make calls, or conduct any other work outside of normal business hours on their cell phones, must heed the Seventh Circuit’s guidance by implementing and enforcing strong and clear policies that meet the “reasonable diligence” standard to ensure that employees are properly compensated for all hours worked.

IMPORTANT DOL UPDATE: The Final Rule on Doubling White Collar Salaries Is Shot Down By Texas Judge

Contributed by Heather Bailey, September 6, 2017

31096470 - concept of time with businessman that hold an alarm clock

Concept of time with businessman holding a clock

Previously, we reported to you on the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule that raised the minimum salary threshold required to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) “white-collar” exemptions (executive, professional and administrative classification) from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $913 per week ($47,476 annually) as of December 1, 2016 (see our prior articles: U.S. DOL Publishes Final Overtime Rule and; Are you ready for December 1st? The FLSA Salary Changes Are Almost Here).

The Obama administration’s goal with this Final Rule, announced on 5/23/2016, was to give approximately 4 million workers the ability to earn overtime pay, instead of getting paid a fixed salary since many employers would not be able to afford to pay their otherwise exempt employees $47,476 annually. Implementation of this new rule had been temporarily stalled in a federal court in Texas just prior to it going into effect this past December 1st (see our prior articles: Court Enjoins DOL Overtime Rule and; Business Realities Under the Halted DOL Final Overtime Rule).

However, on August 31, 2017, Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas answered many business owners’ prayers by ruling the DOL indeed exceeded its authority by more than doubling the minimum salary threshold for exempting white-collar employees (see the full case here).

The judge did not say the DOL could not raise the minimum salary at all. Rather, relying heavily on Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the judge stated that by more than doubling the current minimum threshold, the DOL effectively eliminated the need for looking to the employees’ actual duties and responsibilities—which was the essence of Congress’s intent when it created the FLSA white collar exemptions. The judge looked to the plain meaning of what it means to work in an executive, administrative and professional capacity concluding the primary focus was not the salary minimum but instead the actual duties and responsibilities.

What are the ramifications? The Department of Justice voluntarily dismissed its appeal of Judge Mazzant’s earlier preliminary injunction ruling putting the Final Rule on hold, so it seems unlikely it will appeal this ruling. However, this decision could catapult the Trump administration to issue a new rule providing for a more moderate increase in the minimum salary threshold – one that does not vitiate the primary focus of the “white collar” overtime exemptions: the employees’ actual duties and responsibilities.

Practice Tips:

  • The good news for now is that employers can continue to follow the previous DOL regulations for white collar exemptions (i.e., duties test and salary test).
  • If you did not do so previously, analyze your exempt positions to confirm they meet the duties test and are truly exempt positions. For example, is your manager truly a manager or is she really a lead worker? Is this manager hiring, firing and disciplining two or more employees?  Is your payroll clerk clearly just doing data entry or is he exercising independent discretion and judgment?  If the position does not meet the duties test, you transitioning the position to make it overtime eligible.
  • Ensure management is trained to enforce policies related to overtime pay such as those relating to working time, time clock procedures, meal and rest breaks, working off the clock issues, etc.
  • Did you already make changes to your employees’ pay or duties based upon the final rule going into effect on December 1, 2016?  While there are ways to change those decisions (i.e., you can change an employee’s pay moving forward for work not yet performed), you need to keep in mind morale issues for employees whose compensation may decrease either by way of a salary reduction or loss of overtime pay.  In these situations, it is highly recommended that you work with your counsel on determining the best practices for your business and your workforce.

With the judge’s ruling, many business owners will be able to find some comfort in being able to keep their exempt employees on a reasonable salary without having to break the bank.

OVERTIME RULE UPDATE – DOL APPEALS PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Contributed by Noah A. Frank

As we previously reported, on 11/22/2016, Judge Amos Mazzant (E.D. Texas) granted a preliminary injunction that halted the 12/1/2016 implementation of the DOL’s Final Overtime Rule, which would have more-than-doubled the minimum salary level for executive/administrative/professional exempt employees.Wage-Hour2

On 12/1/2016, the U.S. DOL filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, indicating that it strongly believes that the DOL followed all required administrative processes, and there is no reason to delay implementation of the Final Rule.

This fight is not over. Employers that have not yet undertaken serious analysis of the duties of claimed exempt positions should do so promptly and determine the strategies they will implement should the injunction be vacated. Stay tuned for further news and analysis of this hotly evolving issue.