Page 1 of 1
We have awaited to see where the U.S. Department of Labor would land with its much anticipated revised “overtime rule” and late yesterday the agency delivered. The USDOL released its long-awaited proposed rule which, if adopted, would set the minimum salary threshold at $679 per week, or $35,308 per year. For now, the proposed rule does not include an automatic update provision (which many were concerned would simply serve to periodically inflate the threshold level), nor does it revise the duties test that accompanies the rule.
Once published in the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to submit comments regarding, among other things, the proposed minimum salary threshold.
Proposed Rule In A Nutshell
Rules Will Not Take Effect On December 1; Future Thereafter Uncertain
In a dramatic last-minute development, a federal judge in Texas on Tuesday (11/22/16) blocked the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) overtime rule from taking effect on December 1. The judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing the rules from being implemented on a nationwide basis.
The fate of the overtime rules is now uncertain. The Trump administration will take over the DOL in less than two months’ time, and the incoming administration has repeatedly indicated that it wants to eliminate unnecessary regulations hampering the business community. Unless an appeals court reverses course in the next several weeks and breathes new life into the rules, it is quite possible that the rules will be further delayed, completely overhauled, or altogether scrapped once President Trump takes office.
Almost immediately, an outcry sprung from the business community, especially those advocating on behalf of small businesses. By doubling the existing salary threshold, the DOL’s actions would likely reduce the proportion of exempt workers sharply while increasing the compensation of many who will remain exempt, rather than engaging in the fundamentally definition process called for under the FLSA. As many pointed out, manipulating exemption requirements to “give employees a raise” has never been an authorized or legitimate pursuit.
Moreover, publishing what amounts to an automatic “update” to the minimum salary threshold is something that has never before happened in the more-than-75-year history of the FLSA exemptions. This departs from the prior DOL practice of engaging in what should instead ultimately be a qualitative evaluation that would take into account a variety of considerations.
The challengers argued that the DOL did not properly carry out its responsibility under the FLSA to define these exemptions, failing to take into account the duties of white-collar workers as the best indicator for whether threshold increases were needed. The plaintiffs also argued that the automatic indexing mechanism which would ratchet up the salary levels every three years was improper because it would ignore current economic conditions or the effect on public and private resources.
The judge recognized that, for 75 years, the salary levels that served as part of the DOL’s overtime exemption test acted as a floor and not a ceiling. He said during last week’s oral argument the new rule’s proposed salary jump was “a much more drastic change.” During that argument, in fact, he pointed out that the proposed substantial increase in the salary threshold could lead to inconsistent treatment of workers who each fulfill white collar duties but are paid differently. An example is a convenience store manager who clearly acts as an executive and who is paid a salary annualizing to only $47,000 a year, for example, would be treated differently than a similarly situated manager who is paid a salary equating to $47,500 a year.
Assuming that the injunction survives the remainder of President Obama’s term, it is difficult to predict what President Trump will do with the rules once in the White House. Perhaps President Trump will direct his DOL to commence a new rulemaking process, subject to notice and comment, with the goals of setting lower thresholds for the salary requirement and eliminating the three-year update, among other changes. How long and what form such a process would take, and what could or would be done in the meantime, are currently unpredictable.
At the same time, a series of measures have been introduced in Congress hoping to prevent or stall the rules changes. While one of the proposed legislative changes would scrap the increases altogether, another proposed change would delay implementation for a period of time to provide a longer period of preparation. Still, another would push the date that the full increase would take effect to 2019, introducing more forgiving gradual increases on an annual basis for the next three years.
The fate of these measures is similarly uncertain at present. Even if any of these measures were fast-tracked, approved by Congress, and signed by President Obama before he leaves office, it is unclear whether they would ever take effect given the nature of the current litigation.
If you had been waiting until December 1 to implement the changes, you have the option of putting any alterations on ice and awaiting a final determination on the fate of the rules. If you do so, you might consider communicating to your workforce that the expected changes are going to be delayed given today’s court ruling, and let them know that you will continue to monitor the situation and make adjustments when and if appropriate.
We will track these developments and provide updates as issued.
President Obama has proposed expanding the availability of overtime pay, which would cause the Department of Labor to do its first overhaul of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations in 10 years.
The President signed a memorandum on March 13, 2014, instructing the Department of Labor to update regulations about who qualifies for overtime pay. In particular, he wants to raise the threshold level for the salary-basis test from the current $455 per week in order to account for inflation. The threshold has been raised just twice in the past 40 years. The President did not specify the exact amount the threshold should be raised though.
“Unfortunately, today, millions of Americans aren’t getting the extra pay they deserve. That’s because an exception that was originally meant for high-paid, white-collar employees now covers workers earning as little as $23,660 a year,” Obama said in his remarks on overtime pay.
The memorandum also suggests that both the primary duties and pay of some exempted employees do not truly fit in the executive, administrative and professional employees exemptions, referred to as the white-collar exemptions under FLSA.
In a fact sheet on the President’s memorandum, the White House said: “Millions of salaried workers have been left without the protections of overtime or sometimes even the minimum wage. For example, a convenience store manager or a fast food shift supervisor or an office worker may be expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week or more, making barely enough to keep a family out of poverty, and not receive a dime of overtime pay.” The FLSA’s minimum wage would not protect a salaried worker because salaried workers’ pay must satisfy the weekly salary-basis test rather than the Federal hourly minimum wage, which is $7.25 per hour. The hourly minimum wage in Florida is currently $7.93 per hour.
The memo also pointed out that “only 12% of salaried workers fall below the threshold that would guarantee them overtime and minimum wage protections.“ The fact sheet also called the current FLSA regulations outdated, noting that states such as New York and California have set higher salary thresholds.
Small businesses will be hit particularly hard by a change in the FLSA regulations.
If the regulations shrink the current white-collar exemptions, employers would have two main options to hold down costs. They would have to either increase workers’ salary above the new salary-basis threshold (to avoid paying overtime) or leave employees in the nonexempt category and pay them overtime. Companies could also hire more employees, but the other two options are more likely.
Implications for HR
Once tightened white-collar exemptions are implemented, which is not likely to happen for months now, it could result in far-reaching implications for HR, including wage and hour audits and layoffs. The money to pay for increased overtime wages has got to come from somewhere which might mean layoffs, reducing overtime and taking a fresh look at the fluctuating workweek.
When asked at a press briefing about the burden on businesses if the Obama administration succeeds in efforts to both increase the federal minimum wage and revise FLSA regulations, Betsey Stevenson, a member of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, said, “We think these two items are very different, but, obviously, they do feed into the same thing, which is people should be rewarded for fair work.” She suggested that some workers in the white-collar exemptions aren’t even earning minimum wage for all the work they do at low salaries.
Even though the president did not assign a number for the minimum salary-basis threshold, Stevenson said the overtime “protections have been eroded over time. This threshold in 1975 was nearly $1,000 in today’s dollars; today it’s $455.” Stevenson believes that the rule should be modernized as a matter of the “basic principle of fairness.”
We will continue to keep you abreast of any changes to FLSA as well as other regulations that can impact your business. If you have any questions about the current or proposed FLSA regulations, please contact our office.
The topic this month focuses on identifying five of the stickiest Wage & Hour issues that employers face under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
FLSA class actions are up approximately 70% since 2000 and more than half of all the FLSA lawsuites being filed in Federal courts nationwide are being filed in Florida.
Some of these issues covered include:
Please contact our office directly if you have any Wage & Hour or FLSA questions and how it could be impacting your business.