PREVIOUS PAGE
NEXT PAGE

Page 2 of 3

What Employers Need to Know About the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

March 19 - Posted at 2:14 PM Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

The afternoon of March 18, 2020, the Senate passed H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Division C of the Bill details the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, and Division E provides additional protections under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. Both divisions apply to employers with fewer than 500 employees.

At a high level, these laws work together so that, under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, qualifying employees will receive 80 hours of paid leave for immediate use, then they will received paid leave at two-thirds of the employee’s wages for the duration of a COVID-19 related Family and Medical Leave Act leave.

Key provisions of both laws are described below.

Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (Effective 15 days after enactment)

This statute provides for additional benefits under the FMLA so that eligible employees will receive job protection and a paid component for certain COVID-19-related absences.

Which employers are covered? 

Employers with fewer than 500 employees are subject to the expansion. Part-time employees are included in this count to assess coverage.

The Secretary of Labor has authority “for good cause” to exempt (1) certain healthcare providers and emergency responders; and (2) small employers with fewer than 50 employees where the added expense would jeopardize the business. Under certain circumstances, the requirement to restore employees to their employment will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

Additionally, an employer of employees who are healthcare providers or emergency responders may exclude these employees.

As a practical matter, larger employers that break up their workforce across smaller employing entities should review the respective employee populations for each entity to determine whether the expansion will apply to that population. In making this decision, consider what company is listed as the employer on an employee’s pay statement or review each Employer Identification Number separately.

Which employees are eligible?

Employees who have been employed for at least 30 calendar days will qualify for leave. Notably, the other FMLA employee eligibility requirements (e.g., hours worked) do not apply here.

Employers appear to have the discretion to exclude healthcare providers and emergency responders, though this language of the statute is in tension with the delegation of rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Labor to determine such exemptions.

What events will trigger coverage?

Employees who are unable to telework may use this leave if they must care for a child following the closure of a school or daycare, or other unavailability of childcare due to the coronavirus.

How does paid leave apply?

The first ten (10) days of FMLA leave may be unpaid (but see the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act provisions, below).  Employees may elect to use their accrued vacation, personal or sick leave to cover this window, but employers may not require it. After this initial period, the employer will be required to pay at least two-thirds of an employee’s regular wages, according to their normally scheduled hours.

Payment is capped at $200 per day and $10,000 total for the duration of the leave.

The statute provides a formula for calculating payments for employees with varying or irregular schedules.

The expansion allows for up to twelve (12) weeks of coverage for all eligible employees in addition to the initial 10-day supplement provided by the Act.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (Effective 15 days after enactment)

This statute provides for immediate use of up to 80 hours of paid leave for eligible employees, in addition to any other leave policies afforded by the employer.

Which employers are covered?

Employers with fewer than 500 employees are subject to the statute.  Part-time employees are included in this count to assess coverage.

The Secretary of Labor has authority to exempt (1) certain healthcare providers and emergency responders; (2) small employers with fewer than 50 employees where the added expense would jeopardize the business.  Under certain circumstances, the requirement to restore employees to their employment will not apply to businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

Which employees are eligible?

All employees, full and part-time, are covered. Unlike the FMLA expansion, there is no tenure requirement.

However, an employer of employees who are healthcare providers or emergency responders may exclude these employees. Employers appear to have the discretion to exclude health care providers and emergency responders, though this language of the statute is in tension with the delegation of rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Labor to determine such exemptions.

When can employees take leave?

Immediately.  There is no accrual or waiting period.

What events will trigger coverage?

Employees who are unable to telework may use this leave for COVID-19 related medical leave, including self-isolation due to a positive COVID-19 diagnosis; obtaining a medical diagnosis or care if the employee is experiencing coronavirus symptoms; complying with a recommendation or order of a public health official or healthcare provider; caring for a family member who is self-isolating because of a positive diagnosis or experiencing coronavirus symptoms; or is experiencing any other “substantially similar condition” specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.

As with the FMLA component above, coverage will also be triggered where an employee must care for a child following the closure of a school or daycare, or other unavailability of childcare due to the coronavirus.

How does paid leave apply?  

Full-time employees are entitled to 80 hours of paid leave. For part-time employees, employers should use the employee’s average weekly hours over a two-week period. State and local minimum wage rates are automatically adopted for calculating payments if they are higher than the employee’s effective hourly rate.

Payment is capped at $511 per day or $5111 in the aggregate if the employee is home due to any qualifying reason listed above other than school closure or care for an ill family member under specific circumstances. Payment is capped at $200 per day or $2000 in the aggregate if the employee is home caring for a family member with the virus or due to a child’s school closure.

How does the statute interact with state and local law?

This leave is to be given in addition to any required paid leave provided by state or local law.

Does this paid leave ever expire?

Yes. Leave will automatically expire on December 31, 2020 and cannot be carried over into the following calendar year.

What happens if an employer violates the Act?

Failure to pay sick leave will be treated as a minimum wage violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Remedies for a private cause of action include unpaid wages, liquidated damages (double damages), attorneys’ fees and costs. Employers should be conscious of the heightened risk for a collective action for failure to comply, as well as the potential for personal liability for owners, corporate officers, and other supervisors provided by the FLSA.

Discrimination or retaliation against employees who take leave under the Act or file a complaint relating to the Act is also prohibited. Employers contemplating cost saving measures, including a reduction in force, layoff, or hours reduction, against employees availing themselves to this benefit are strongly encouraged to seek legal counsel to assess risk.

How do employers alert their employees of the Act?

Within seven days from enactment, the Secretary of Labor will provide a model notice to be posted in areas that are readily accessible to employees (e.g., kitchens and breakrooms). We anticipate direct notice might also be required in the form of an email or letter.

Refundable Payroll Tax Credits for Paid Leave (Effective 15 days after enactment)

The statute also provides for refundable payroll tax credits through 2020 for employers that provide paid leave in accordance with either the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act or the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.

How is the tax credit determined?

Section 7001 of the act provides a tax credit for the cost of paid leave provided under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. Section 7003 of the act provides a similar tax credit for the cost of paid leave provided under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.

Both credits are applied against section 3111(a) or 3221(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, which imposes the employer portion of Social Security and Medicare (FICA) taxes.  Accordingly, even employers that do not pay income tax may benefit from the credit.  The credits are refundable to the employer.

Section 7001 permits a tax credit for up to 10 days of paid leave per employee under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act in the amount of up to (a) $511 per day for amounts paid to employees who must self-isolate, obtain a diagnosis, or comply with medical advice regarding a COVID-19 diagnosis, or (b) up to $200 per day for employees on paid leave due to caring for a family member or for a child due to school closures or unavailability of care.  In addition, employers may obtain a credit for “qualified health plan expenses” that are allocable to providing qualified paid sick leave determined above.

Section 7003 provides a similar tax credit for paid leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act, but that credit is limited to $200 per day and an aggregate of $10,000.  A credit is also available for the cost of providing qualified health plan expenses allocable to providing the qualified family leave determined above.

Similar refundable tax credits are available for self-employed workers.

When does the tax credit apply?

The tax credit applies only to paid wages beginning on the effective date of the law (15 days after its enactment), and will expire on December 31, 2020. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is expressly empowered to issue additional guidance implementing these changes, and the bill includes additional funding reserved to the IRS for this purpose.

*****

As with any new legislation, the Act will result in a lot of unanswered questions regarding implementation.  We will continue to make available guidance as it becomes available. 

Congress Makes Significant Changes to Proposed FMLA and Sick Leave Requirements in COVID-19 Bill

March 17 - Posted at 12:58 PM Tagged: , , ,

On March 16, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled legislation revisiting the sweeping COVID-19 response bill it passed only days earlier.  While listed as “corrections” to the prior legislation, this new bill dramatically changes a number of provisions it had previously adopted.

It is stressed that this bill—like the prior iteration of H.R. 6201—is but one step in the process.  The U.S. Senate is preparing to debate its own legislation responding to COVID-19. What the House and Senate ultimately pass separately must be reconciled before a single bill can be approved and sent to the president for his signature. 

By way of brief background, the House originally approved sweeping legislation to address COVID-19, including several proposals relating to employer-mandated paid sick leave, as well as expansion of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  Specifically, that bill required private employers with 500 or fewer employees, and most public-sector employers, to provide extended “emergency” FMLA leave for a variety of COVID-19-related contingencies.  It further adopted an emergency paid sick leave requirement for these same employers, while providing refundable tax credit relief for emergency FMLA and sick leave.  Although the bill was adopted on a bipartisan basis, it immediately drew concern from many quarters, particularly small businesses facing a dramatic downturn in business relating to the current public health emergency, and the real-time economic impact these new requirements would have on these employers. 

The new legislation released by the House generally narrows and targets these relief programs, and attempts to harmonize their interaction. This revised bill now provides as follows:

Emergency Family and Medical Leave Act

The revised bill provides that private-sector employers with fewer than 500 employees, and covered public-sector employers, must provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected FMLA leave for “a qualifying need related to a public health emergency” to employees who have been on the payroll for 30 calendar days.  This “qualifying need” is limited to circumstances where an employee is unable to work (or telework) due to a need to care for a minor child if the child’s school or place of child care has been closed or is unavailable due to a public health emergency.  This is a dramatic scaling back from the prior iteration of the bill, which would have provided extended FMLA for a far broader range of COVID-19-related reasons.

As with the prior bill, the first segment days of emergency FMLA leave (which has been reduced from 14 days to 10 days in the revised bill) can be unpaid.  An employee can opt to substitute accrued vacation, personal, or sick leave, but an employer may not require an employee to do so.

The remainder of FMLA leave is required to be paid, generally at two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate, for the number of hours the employee would otherwise be scheduled to work.  Unlike the prior bill, the revised bill limits the amount of required pay for leave to no more than $200 per day and $10,000 in the aggregate. 

Emergency FMLA leave taken is generally job-protected, meaning the employer must restore employees to their prior positions (or an equivalent) upon the expiration of their need for leave.  As in the prior version, the bill includes an exception to this requirement for employers with fewer than 25 employees, if the employee’s position no longer exists following leave due to operational changes occasioned by a public health emergency (e.g., a dramatic downturn in business caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), subject to certain conditions.

The revised bill retains language allowing the Secretary of Labor to exclude health care providers and emergency responders from the definition of employees who are allowed to take such leave, and to exempt small businesses (defined as those with fewer than 50 employees) if the required leave would jeopardize the viability of their business.

Further, the bill appears to exclude employers with fewer than 50 employees in a 75-mile radius from civil FMLA damages in an employee-initiated lawsuit.  Finally, the bill expressly provides that employers may exclude employees who are health care providers or emergency responders from this emergency FMLA entitlement. 

The bill would take effect 15 days after enactment, and sunset on December 31, 2020.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave

The bill requires private employers with fewer than 500 employees, and covered public employers, to provide paid sick time to an employee who is unable to work or telework because: (1) the employee is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19; (2) the employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine because of COVID-19; (3) the employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis; (4) the employee is caring for an individual subject or advised to quarantine or isolation; (5) the employee is caring for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions; or (6) the employee is experiencing substantially similar conditions as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor and Treasury.

An employer may exclude employees who are health care providers or emergency responders from this coverage. The bill also grants the Secretary of Labor the authority to issue regulations to: (a) exclude certain health care providers and emergency responders from the definition of employee by, among other things, allowing them to opt out; (b) exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from these requirements if they jeopardize the viability of a business as a going concern; and (c) ensure consistency between the paid family and paid sick standards and tax credits.

In general, an employee is entitled to 80 hours of paid sick time (pro-rated for part-time employees).  Unlike the 30-day payroll requirement, employees are immediately eligible for this leave. 

The bill limits an employer’s requirement of paid leave to $511 per day ($5,110 in the aggregate) where leave is taken for reasons (1), (2), and (3) noted above (generally, an employee’s own illness or quarantine); and $200 per day ($2,000 in the aggregate) where leave is taken for reasons (4), (5), or (6) (care for others or school closures).

The bill includes a prohibition on retaliating against any employee who takes leave in accordance with the new law.  The bill further provides that the failure to pay required sick leave will be treated as a failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The bill would become effective 15 days after its enactment, and sunset on December 31, 2020.

Tax Credits and Other Efforts

The bill includes refundable tax credits for employers that are required to offer Emergency FMLA or paid sick leave, including self-employed individuals.  Note that these credits are only available to those employers that are required to offer these benefits under the new law, and these new credits are not generally extended to employers not subject to the new mandates under the bill.

In addition, the Department of Treasury is reported to be exploring means within its administrative powers to allow small businesses the liquidity and cash flow they need to maintain operations.

Finally, it seems likely that Congress will next turn its attention to broader economic relief measures.  Many have suggested a reduction or suspension in the payroll tax.  Others are calling for targeted relief for specific industries (travel, lodging, restaurants, retail), which have been rapidly and dramatically impacted by the pandemic.

Going Forward

The bill still leaves many questions unanswered.  For example, the bill does not define “full time” employment.  Similarly, it does not state explicitly how employers will be expected to calculate the number of their employees for purposes of the fewer-than-500 cap.  Both the existing FMLA and FLSA include provisions relating to the aggregation of employees where there is common control or an integrated enterprise.  Absent congressional change, it is likely courts and agencies will apply these tests for purposes of the emergency leave expansion thresholds.

More broadly, and as noted above, the landscape changes daily as Congress considers (and now, potentially reconsiders) legislative and policy responses to this unprecedented public health emergency.  

USDOL Releases Overtime Rule 2.0 For 2020

September 25 - Posted at 6:44 PM Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

The suspense is over – the Department of Labor announced  yesterday the revised Overtime Rule, which will set the minimum salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standard Act’s white-collar exemptions at $684 per week, or $35,568 per year. The rule, which will expand overtime pay obligations to an estimated 1.3 million additional workers, will take effect on January 1, 2020. The big question is what do you need to know about this breaking news?

Proposed Rule In A Nutshell

  • The minimum salary threshold will be $684 per week, annualized to $35,568 per year.
    • The rule provides for one threshold regardless of exemption, industry, or locality, subject to a few exceptions that already existed.
    • Employers will be able to credit certain non-discretionary payments in limited ways.
  • The highly compensated employee exemption’s additional total annual compensation requirement will be set at $107,432 per year.
  • No changes will be made to the duties tests – the crux of the relevant exemptions.
    • The changes are limited to the executive, administrative, professional, and highly compensated employee exemptions.
    • No change has been made to the various other exemptions (for example, outside sales) that do not specifically include a salary requirement even if the employee happens to earn a salary.
  • There will be no “automatic” updates, or even a formal schedule of future adjustments to these figures.
    • However, you can expect that the salary threshold will be assessed more frequently than it has been in the past, but hopefully not so often that it essentially drives the market.

A Brief History Of The Overtime Rule Saga

It seems an eternity ago when President Obama directed the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) to revise the regulations governing the outdated white-collar exemptions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The proposal eventually released by the USDOL would have radically altered the federal compensation rules. Most notably, the agency would have more than doubled the salary threshold and applied, essentially, a formula to update the amount every three years. This minimum threshold was set to become effective on December 1, 2016, and the “updating” would begin, ironically, on January 1, 2020.

But concerned states and business groups sought to block the rule from taking effect, and, at the last minute, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the rule from being implemented on a nationwide basis. Since the Texas court put the final nail in Overtime Rule 1.0’s coffin by striking down the rule once and for all in August 2017, employers have been patiently awaiting a revised rule.

Under the current administration, USDOL leadership indicated that it would no longer advocate for the $913 per week proposal but would instead undertake further rulemaking to determine what the salary level should be. In what seemed like a painstakingly long process, the agency held public forums, issued a request for information, and sought comments on a proposed rule that, like Overtime Rule 1.0, focused solely on the pay component but without completely overshadowing the duties tests. After all, the FLSA authorizes the agency to define and delimit the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions – not supplant them. Today, finally, all of the work culminated in the release of Overtime Rule 2.0.

Will This Rule Survive?

After the drama surrounding the last-minute injunction blocking the 2016 proposal, it would be natural for employers to feel gun-shy about adjusting to these changes. After all, isn’t there a chance that another court will once again block these changes and put us in yet another state of limbo? While there is always a chance for litigation to unfold in such a way that it would impact the implementation of this rule, there are several reasons why you should be preparing as if this rule will go into effect as planned on January 1, 2020.

First, while there is no magic number for setting the salary threshold (that’s the whole point), there is something to be said for certainty. The new rule skirts some of the more problematic areas that existed with the first attempt at revisions. The $684 per week threshold will require the reclassification (or pay increases) of some employees, but a far less significant portion than would have seen increases had the $913-per-week proposal of three years ago was adopted. 

Second, while the rule contains some of the same flaws as Overtime Rule 1.0, they generally are not the kinds of concerns that were previously raised in lawsuits. Employer advocates will have more difficulty taking the position that this particular threshold eclipses the duties tests. Likewise, while employee advocates might feel that the threshold is set at too low a level, meeting the pay component does not make someone exempt in and of itself, so this argument is more philosophic in nature and may not warrant the rule being blocked.

Finally, the USDOL must be well prepared at this point to defend the rule. Even aside from the litigation, it has received voluminous public feedback on an increase from $455 per week numerous times, including those shared in 2015, 2017, and 2018. So, while litigation seems inevitable, employers should not be idle in preparing for this rule to take effect.

Avoiding The Last-Minute Panic

As recounted above, the drama surrounding Overtime Rule 1.0 was a painfully long process for employers as they waited to see what might happen. The best practice, though, is to assume Overtime Rule 2.0 is the real thing. That said, you should not run out tomorrow and make immediate changes to your compensation structure. Instead, you should use this time to start evaluating not just whether changes will be necessary, but how best to make those changes (timing, communications, etc.).

If you made changes in 2016 in anticipation of the $913 per week threshold, you are certainly ahead of the curve. If you did some of the work but decided to wait to implement once the preliminary injunction was put in place, you also have a great head start. Nonetheless, in both cases, you must keep in mind that three years have passed and it is possible that an employee’s work has changed in the interim. 

It is imperative to confirm your prior findings at least for any employee that might receive a salary increase to qualify for exempt status under Overtime Rule 2.0. No employee is automatically entitled to be treated as exempt; in contrast, increasing the salary for an employee that does not meet the duties tests can only make matters worse.

Right now, you should begin:

  • Analyzing whether those exemptions you have been relying upon will still apply;
  • Considering the possible application of alternative FLSA exemptions; and
  • Developing FLSA-compliant pay plans for employees who have been treated as exempt but who no longer will be.

Courtesy of Fisher Phillips LLP

 

Workplace Law Predictions For 2019

January 09 - Posted at 7:15 PM Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Courtesy of Fisher Phillips LLP

2018 has seen quite a few changes in labor and employment law. But with the New Year having just rung in, it’s time to look forward rather than backward. The question on the tip of everyone’s tongue is: what’s next? Here are our predictions for what to expect in 2019 when it comes to workplace law.

Expect More Class Actions

We’re going to start out with the bad news. Because of the potential for a big payout, class and collective actions are a favorite for plaintiffs’ attorneys. You should not expect that to change in 2019.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation has opened up even more avenues for potential wage and hour claims in the Golden State, and the trend could hit the rest of the country, too. In July 2018, the California Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the de minimus doctrine under state law and held that employees must be paid for off-the-clock work that regularly lasts several minutes per day. While the California Supreme Court refused to shut the door entirely on the de minimus doctrine, it noted that technological advances should help employers track small bits of time, and that employers can restructure work to avoid off-the-clock time.

Employers outside of California may see plaintiffs’ attorneys attempting to use the same rationale employed by the California Supreme Court to argue that the de minimus doctrine should not apply in the circumstances of their case. Moreover, with more employees having remote access to emails and other mobile platforms, the number of ways for employees to argue that they were working off the clock has increased. 

The Ascendance Of Arbitration Agreements 

One way for employers to avoid class actions is through arbitration agreements. Last May, the Supreme Court ruled in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis that mandatory class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable. As a result, you can expect to see an increase in the number of companies rolling out updated agreements to include class action waiver language. (Note: if you have not had your arbitration agreement reviewed since May when Epic Systems came out, make it your New Year’s Resolution to do so.)

However, while popular with employers, arbitration agreements are decidedly not so with the plaintiffs’ bar. Expect to see plaintiffs’ counsel becoming more creative in challenging arbitration agreements on grounds related to unconscionability. 

We may even be starting to see a backlash against arbitration agreements. Most recently, some law students have been pressuring big law firms to do away with them when it comes to their own hires. And last year, the California legislature passed a law banning mandatory employment arbitration agreements for claims arising out of alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or California Labor Code. Although the bill was ultimately vetoed by outgoing Governor Jerry Brown, expect to see the fight continue in 2019.

Don’t Look To Congress To Lead The Way

With Democrats controlling the House, and Republicans controlling the Senate and Executive Branch, you can expect that most employment legislation will be dead on arrival. When it comes to innovative legislation impacting the workplace, you should look to the states to lead the way. This is not to say that there won’t be any changes to labor and employment law on the federal level in 2019. However, we expect the most significant changes to be made by agencies (such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Justice, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, etc.) rather than Congress.

NLRB Will Narrow The Definition Of Joint Employer

One of those agencies—the NLRB—made noise last year when it published a proposed rule that would alter the definition of joint employment to make it more difficult to hold multiple businesses responsible for alleged labor and employment law violations by staffing companies, franchisees, and other related organizations. Expect to see continued movement and updates on this proposed rule in 2019. 

But before getting too excited at any potential changes, you should keep in mind that states may have their own rules regarding joint employment that could differ from what the NLRB comes up with. Any new rules may not affect your organization’s liability under state law.

USDOL Has A Full Plate

Another agency you should keep an eye on is the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL).  Not only is the USDOL considering its own joint employment rule, but the agency has proposed regulations regarding the regular rate of pay and white collar exemptions (also known as the “overtime” rule). 

The regular rate of pay is of particular importance to employers because it is used to calculate the overtime rate of non-exempt employees. While we know that changes to the proposed regulations are targeting sections 7(e)(2) and 7(g)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the USDOL has been rather vague about what the proposed regulations will look like. The USDOL states that they aim to “provide employers more flexibility in the compensation and benefits packages they offer employees” and “lessen litigation regarding the regular rate.”   

The regulation relating to the white collar exemption is less opaque. As employers may recall, the minimum salary threshold for white collar exemptions was supposed to increase from $455 per week (or $23,660 annually) to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually), with the amount to be updated every three years. However, right before these changes were scheduled to take effect in December 2016, a federal court blocked their implementation. Under a new administration, we expect that we will see a more modest proposed increase in the white collar exemption in 2019—perhaps in the low $600s per week. 

Paid Sick Leave Will Continue To Be On Trend

Although there are no federal laws mandating paid sick leave (yet), you can expect that paid sick and family leave will continue to be a big issues, with states and localities picking up the slack. Right now, 11 states and the District of Columbia require paid sick leave. Additionally, various cities and counties have stepped in where states have not provided for such leave or to give more generous benefits than the state. 

You generally should anticipate an expansion of paid sick leave benefits in 2019. The New Jersey Paid Sick Leave Act went into effect October, while Michigan, Washington, and Westchester County (NY) have paid sick leave laws going into effect this year. 

While some municipalities in Texas want to get in on this trend, a Texas appeals courtruled the Austin Paid Sick Leave Ordinance violates the state constitution because it preempts the Texas Minimum Wage Act. San Antonio passed its own sick leave ordinance in 2018, but it may only be a matter of time before it, too, is challenged in court. 

Privacy Issues Remain Paramount

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect in May 2018, ushering in sweeping reforms for companies that do business in the EU or employ EU residents. The GDPR threatens strict penalties for non-compliance—up to the greater of 20 million Euro or 4 percent of global annual turnover in the prior year. Having been in effect less than a year, it is still not clear how fines will be assessed and what the potential exposure will be for companies that are found to be non-compliant. As 2019 progresses, you can expect to see many investigations that began in 2018 come to a close, and we’ll begin to get a better idea of how regulatory authorities will assess fines for non-compliance—including whether the fearsome 4 percent penalty will be assessed.   

Lest you think the major developments in privacy are safely across the ocean in Europe, you can be sure there will be plenty of action closer to home in 2019. The Illinois Supreme Court currently has a case before it over whether a technical violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Act (BIPA) gives standing to sue absent a person suffering a concrete injury. If the court answers in the affirmative, you can expect to see a continued proliferation of BIPA class actions.

Further, California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2018, which goes into effect at the beginning of 2020. While the law is not as comprehensive as the GDPR, California employers will soon need to figure out this year if it applies to them. You should take compliance seriously: the CCPA allows consumers whose rights have been violated under the Act to bring suit for actual damages or statutory penalties (whichever is greater) under a mechanism somewhat akin to a California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. You can expect the proliferation of CCPA lawsuits will be on next year’s list of predictions. 

 

Can You Be Held Personally Liable In An Employment Lawsuit?

July 06 - Posted at 3:00 PM Tagged: , , , , , , ,

In “Alice in Wonderland,” the Queen of Hearts once proclaimed, “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” This appears to be the rallying cry of many plaintiffs across the country when they file administrative charges and lawsuits. They continue to name individual supervisors and human resources directors as individual defendants despite case law that generally holds individuals cannot be found liable under some of the most common federal employment discrimination laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Unfortunately, the clear language in case law supporting the dismissal of individuals has not prevented plaintiffs from bringing claims under these statutes. A federal court judge in Oregon recently outlined this costly and questionable practice in his dismissal opinion in a case involving Starbucks, stating:

[Plaintiff’s] attorneys regularly file suit in state court for violations of these [discrimination] statutes against individual employees, knowing that they likely will be defended and indemnified by the employer, for the ostensible purpose of educating and deterring them from unlawful behavior. This court fails to see any need to file a lawsuit to deter such unlawful behavior. Even if employees are not sued individually, their employer surely will take appropriate action to deter any future behavior. [Plaintiff’s] attorneys also admitted that as a matter of course they sue employees prior to engaging in discovery and obtaining any evidence as to how complicit the employees may have been in the alleged discrimination or retaliation. Instead, they appear to presume that any employee who questions the plaintiff’s work performance should be sued.

Being named in a lawsuit puts individuals in a terrible position of having to personally defend themselves. Even if they are able to eventually get dismissed from the complaint, they do not come out unscathed—they often get stuck paying defense costs and are usually subjected to the invasive discovery process.

This shotgun approach to employment litigation establishes that plaintiff take the Cheshire Cat’s words to heart, in pursuit of money: “If you don’t know where you are going, any road can take you there.”

Federal And State Laws That Permit Individual Liability

The frightening aspect of this trend is that those roads do sometimes lead plaintiffs to a place where they can recover from supervisors, managers, and HR directors. At the state level, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington are among the states that allow plaintiffs to bring claims against individuals under the theory that they “aided and abetted” discrimination or harassment. And California allows plaintiffs to bring claims against individuals for harassment. Likewise, many states allow plaintiffs to bring claims against individuals who “retaliate” against them for engaging in protected activity. These types of laws will continue to sweep across the country as the states that have enacted them are generally at the forefront of employee rights.

At the federal level, individuals are regularly found personally liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).

For instance, a 2017 case out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently held that an HR director may be individually liable for FMLA and wage violations. In Edelman v. Source Healthcare Analytics, LLC, the court determined that there is individual liability under the statute because it defines an “employer” to include “any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer.” The court next found the HR director acted in the interest of the employer when she terminated plaintiff.

The court reasoned that the HR director is subject to personal liability under the FMLA because she exerted control over plaintiff’s specific leave and because she terminated her. Using this same reasoning, it appears that the court would have likely reached this same conclusion if it was a manager, or perhaps even a general counsel, who advised the plaintiff of her FMLA rights and subsequently terminated the plaintiff’s employment.

An even more recent case out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a defendant’s request to have a race discrimination claim against the individual supervisor dismissed. In a 2018 case against a trucking company, the plaintiff made four different attempts to sue a former supervisor. The fourth time was the charm, as the court recently concluded that the plaintiff pled the bare minimum for his race discrimination claim to survive against the supervisor under § 1981.

Interestingly, the only allegation relating to possible race-based discrimination was plaintiff’s allegation that the supervisor ordered him “to go home early” and “leave work until his next scheduled shift.” The supervisor allegedly made this demand upon learning about plaintiff’s report to another employee of disparate treatment between Caucasian and African-American employees.

This case should serve as a cautionary tale to all HR directors, managers, and supervisors as there were no other allegations of race-based discrimination against the individual supervisor. In fact, there were no allegations that the supervisor had any involvement in the decision to terminate the plaintiff. Further, there were no allegations that the supervisor played a role in the union’s investigation and hearing. The court simply concluded the supervisor’s decision to send the plaintiff home was enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

Takeaways

Managers, HR directors, and supervisors should heed the Queen of Hearts’ recommendations when considering what steps to take to protect themselves and their company: “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

To better protect yourself and the company, you should ensure your employee handbook accurately reflects the ever-changing laws related to protected classes and all forms of harassment. Second, you should schedule annual harassment and discrimination trainings with managers and non-managers. These trainings will act as a defense in the event of a discrimination or harassment lawsuit. Also, the trainings will put employees on notice that they may be personally liable for violations of both state and federal employment statutes.

Finally, there must be an emphasis, from the top down, to take responsibility for the company’s workplace culture. Remaining complacent exposes both companies and individuals to a disgruntled employee exclaiming “off with their heads!”

Article Courtesy of Fisher & Phillips

Last Minute Ruling Preliminarily Halts Overtime Rules

November 23 - Posted at 2:08 PM Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

Background: Proposed Rules Would Have Brought Massive Changes And Upheaval


On May 18, 2016, the DOL unveiled a package of revised regulations altering the compensation requirements relating to which employees may be treated as exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA’s) overtime and minimum-wage requirements under the so-called “white collar” exemptions. The two changes with the broadest impact: the minimum salary threshold to characterize an employee as non-exempt would increase from $455 to $913 per week, which annualizes to $47,476 (up from $23,660 per year); and this amount would be “updated” every three years (meaning that it will likely increase with each update) with the first update scheduled for January 1, 2020.


Once announced, the DOL informed employers that the new rules would take effect on December 1, 2016. By this date, employers would have been forced to make sometimes difficult decisions on how to compensate the estimated 4.2 million workers who are currently classified as exempt under the so-called “white collar” exemptions but earn less than the new threshold.



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.


Businesses And States Turn To Court For Relief


In response to these announced changes, a group of 21 states and several business associations filed lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas seeking a court order that would block the rules from going into effect. The cases were all consolidated into one action, to be heard by District Court Judge Amos Mazzant.


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.


Court Blocks Overtime Rules


On November 22, 2016, District Court Judge Mazzant agreed with the state challengers and blocked final implementation of the rule mere days before the December 1 effective date. In his ruling, he stated that it was improper for the DOL to adopt a salary test that categorically excludes a substantial number of workers who meet the exemptions’ duties-related requirements. Although he acknowledged that Congress delegated definitional power to the agency with respect to these exemptions, he concluded that the DOL overstepped its authority.


He concluded that the rule change equated to a de facto “salary-only test,” because it would have had the effect of causing some 4.2 million workers who are today classified as exempt to become non-exempt, despite the fact they would have exactly the same job duties on December 1. He said that Congress never authorized the DOL to classify white collar workers based on salary alone, and the DOL ignored Congress’s intent by attempting to raise the minimum salary as it did. “If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test,” he said, “then Congress, and not the DOL, should make that change.”



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.

 

How Does Trump’s Election Impact The Future Of The Rules?


President Trump will be inaugurated on January 20, 2017 – less than two months from today. It is possible that Judge Mazzant might be swayed by DOL arguments in the coming weeks, or that an appeals court could step into reverse Judge Mazzant’s ruling before President Trump takes office. As the judge said in his opinion, it could be that this ruling “only delay[s] the regulation’s implementation.”



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.


What Should Employers Do Now?


Some employers might find themselves in a difficult spot. If you have already made alterations to your compensation plans or to your employees’ exemption status, it might be unpopular to reverse course now. Although you may have the legal right to revert to the status quo depending on your circumstances, you might consider waiting until a final decision is reached in court, Congress, and the White House before doing anything further.



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.

Two New Employee Posters Released by DOL

August 02 - Posted at 3:03 PM Tagged: , , , , ,

The Department of Justice released two new employee posters effective 8/1/16. Be sure to check your current postings and replace as needed. You can access the new posters below:


Employee Polygraph Protection Act Poster


Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Minimum Wage Poster


Please contact our office if you have any questions.

New FLSA Exemption Rules Finally Arrive

May 18 - Posted at 3:46 PM Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The U.S Labor Department (USDOL) has finally released the anxiously awaited revised regulations affecting certain kinds of employees who may be treated as exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime and minimum-wage requirements. These will be published officially on May 23, 2016.


If you currently consider any of your employees to be exempt “white collar” employees, you might have to make some sweeping changes.


Summary of Changes

In brief, the following changes will be made in USDOL’s definitions of executive, administrative, professional, computer-employee, and highly compensated exemptions under the FLSA’s Section 13(a)(1):


  • The minimum salary threshold is increasing to $913 per week, which annualizes to $47,476 (up from $455 per week, or $23,660 per year). USDOL says that this figure is set at the 40th percentile of data representing what it calls “earnings of full-time salaried workers” in the lowest-wage Census region (currently the South).
  • This amount will now be “updated” every three years (meaning that it will likely increase with  each “update”), beginning on January 1, 2020. USDOL will announce these changes 150 days in advance.
  • Employers will be able to satisfy up to 10% of this new threshold through nondiscretionary bonuses and other incentive payments, including commissions, provided that the payments are made at least quarterly. This crediting will not be permitted as to the salaries paid to employees treated as exempt “highly compensated” ones.
  • The total-annual-compensation threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption will increase from $100,000 to $134,004 (which will also be “updated” every three years). USDOL says that this figure is set at the 90th percentile of data representing what it calls “earnings of full-time salaried workers” nationally.


These rules will become effective on December 1, 2016, which is considerably later than had been thought. Unless this is postponed somehow, you must do by this time what is necessary to continue to rely upon one or more of these exemptions (or another exemption) as to each affected employee, or you must forgo exempt status as to any employee who no longer satisfies all of the requirements.

The Bottom Line

Essentially, USDOL is doubling the current salary threshold. This is likely intended to both 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. Manipulating exemption requirements to “give employees a raise” has never been an  authorized or legitimate pursuit.


For the first time in the exemptions’ more-than-75-year history, USDOL will publish what amounts to an automatic “update” to the minimum salary threshold. This departs from the prior USDOL practice of engaging in what should instead ultimately be a qualitative evaluation that also takes into account a variety of non-numerical considerations.


USDOL did not change any of the exemptions’ requirements as they relate to the kinds or amounts of work necessary to sustain exempt status (commonly known as the “duties test”). Of course, USDOL had asked for comments directed to whether there should be a strict more-than-50% requirement for exempt work. The agency apparently decided that this was not necessary in light of the fact that “the number of workers for whom employers must apply the duties test is reduced” by virtue of the salary increase alone.


What Should You Do Now?

Some in Congress are still considering action aimed at stopping these changes, and it is possible that lawsuits will be filed with the same goal. While one or more of these challenges may be successful, you should assume for the time being that the new requirements will take effect as scheduled.


Right now, you should be:


  • analyzing whether the requirements for the “white collar” exemptions you have been relying upon are met
  • evaluating what might be changed about one or more jobs so that the incumbents may be treated as exempt in the future
  • considering the possible application of alternative FLSA exemptions, and
  • developing FLSA-compliant pay plans for employees who have been treated as exempt but who no longer will be.


USDOL has provided extensive commentary explaining its rationale for the revised provisions. We are continuing to study the final regulations and accompanying discussion carefully and will provide updates/changes as published.

U.S. Department of Labor Proposes to Restrict Scope of FLSA ‘White-Collar’ Overtime Exemptions

July 24 - Posted at 5:53 PM Tagged: , , , , , ,

After more than 15 months of waiting, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) announcing the Department’s intention to shrink dramatically the pool of employees who qualify for exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


The 295-page NPRM, released June 30, contains a few specific changes to existing DOL regulations: more than doubling the salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions from $455 a week currently to $921 a week (with a plan to increase that number to $970 a week in the final version of the regulation), as well as raising the pay thresholds for certain other exemptions, and building in room for future annual increases. More ominously, the Department invites comment on a host of other issues. This opens the door to many further significant revisions to the regulations in a Final Rule after the Department reviews the public’s comments to the NPRM.


Background

On March 13, 2014, President Obama directed the Secretary of Labor to modernize and streamline the existing overtime regulations for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees. He said the compensation paid to these employees has not kept pace with America’s economy since the Department last revised regulations in 2004. The President noted that the minimum annual salary level for these exempt classifications under the 2004 regulations is $23,660, which is below the poverty line for a family of four.


Since the President issued his memo, the Department has held meetings with a variety of stakeholders, including employers, workers, trade associations, and other advocates. The Department has raised questions about how the current regulations work and how they can be improved. The discussions have focused on the compensation levels for the exempt classifications as well as the duties required to qualify for exempt status.


The NPRM

The NPRM expressed the Department’s intention to increase the salary threshold for the white-collar exemptions from $455 a week (or $23,660 a year) to $921 a week ($47,892 a year), which the Department expects to revise to $970 a week ($50,440 a year in 2016) when it issues its Final Rule. Under this single change to the regulations, it is estimated that 4.6 million currently exempt employees would lose their exemption right away, with another 500,000 to 1 million currently exempt employees losing exempt status over the next 10 years as a result of the automatic increases to the salary threshold.


The NPRM acknowledges that roughly 25% of all employees currently exempt and subject to the salary basis requirement will be rendered non-exempt under the proposed regs. The Department recognizes that employers are likely to reduce the working hours of currently exempt employees reclassified as a result of these regulations, and that the reduction in hours will probably lead to lower overall pay for these employees.

Related changes in the regs include increasing the annual compensation threshold for exempt highly compensated employees from the present level of $100,000 to a proposed $122,148, as well as raising the exemption threshold for the motion picture producing industry from the present $695 a week to a proposed $1,404 a week for employees compensated on a day-rate basis.


Perhaps not surprisingly, given the likely impact of the proposal, almost all of the NPRM is devoted to economic analysis and justification for the steep increase in the salary thresholds. Nevertheless, the NPRM touches on some other topics as well. The Department states that it is considering, and invites comment on, a wide range of topics, including:

  • Whether to allow nondiscretionary bonuses to satisfy some portion of the required salary level (the Department suggests up to 10%), including the appropriate frequency of such bonuses (the Department suggests not less than monthly);
  • Whether to allow commissions to satisfy some portion of the required salary level;
  • Whether to modify the current duties tests for exempt status, including the “primary duty” standard, by such means as:
    • Adopting the California model requiring that exempt employees spend more than half of their working time on exempt tasks;
    • Placing quantitative limits on the amount of time exempt employees may spend on non-exempt duties; or
    • Modifying or eliminating the concept of concurrent duties whereby exempt employees can maintain exempt status when performing exempt and non-exempt activity simultaneously; and
  • The best way to determine annual updates to the salary levels in the regulations.


What Comes Next?

The proposed regulations are subject to a 30-day public comment period. Now is the time for any employer or trade association dissatisfied with the proposed regulatory text, or concerned about changes the Department is weighing for inclusion in a Final Rule, to submit comments. The Department has put the regulated public on notice: it is considering sweeping changes to the regulations not described specifically in the proposed regulatory text, such as altering the duties tests for exempt status. Employers may not have another opportunity to comment on the content of a Final Rule.


Following the public comment period, the Department will issue a Final Rule that may add, change, delete, or affirm the regulatory text of the proposal. The Office of Management and Budget will review the Final Rule before publication. This process is likely to take at least six to eight months. A Final Rule is not expected before 2016.

Prepare for Imminent FLSA White-Collar Regulations

March 02 - Posted at 3:01 PM Tagged: , , , , , , , ,

While waiting for the pending issuance of the proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) white-collar regulations, employers can begin taking some steps now to prepare.


Many believe the proposed regulations will be issued in March, although the proposed regs haven’t been sent yet to the Office of Management and Budget.


It is rumored that California’s quantitative duties test may be applied to the FLSA executive exemption, which would require employees to spend at least 50 percent of their time in exempt work in order to be classified as exempt. An adviser stated they would be surprised if thequantitative duties test was limited to the executive exemption and feel it might be applied as well to the administrative and professional exemptions.


Employers may begin doing an analysis now on their exempt population and how this change would affect them.


For many companies, some classes of employees are nonexempt in California, but exempt in the rest of the country. That may change with the new rule as well, if California’s quantitative duties test is applied across the nation.


Five Key Steps 

Various legal counsel recommends five key steps employers should take now in anticipation of the revised overtime regulations:

  1. Determine whether you have current job descriptions that accurately reflect job duties and convey the core functions and responsibilities of each role, particularly for exempt positions. Ideally, job descriptions for exempt employees should demonstrate to a reader not familiar with the company—e.g., a DOL [Department of Labor] investigator or a plaintiff’s lawyer—exactly why a role is exempt in clear,straightforward language.
  2. Identify, under advice of counsel to maintain attorney-client privilege, currently exempt positions that may be in the gray zone between clearly exempt and clearly nonexempt. These roles may present the most immediate concern if, as anticipated, the new regulations significantly narrow the exemptions. This may include positions whose salary is toward the lower end of the exempt spectrum, as well as jobs where the employees may engage in a large amount of arguably nonexempt activity.
  3. Make sure business leaders have an understanding that these proposed regulations are coming and that they will have a potentially disruptive effect on the business. Also, business leaders should understand the rules may end up in limbo for several months or more in the event of congressional pushback or litigation. The potential for having to reclassify a large number of employees from exempt to nonexempt may require examining compensation to find alternative ways to incentivize the desired job behaviors, addressing potential benefits consequences and anticipating morale and other employee relations effects. Moreover, employers should know to expect a comment period, followed months later by what will presumably be a final rule that may differ in numerous important respects from the version that appears in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
  4. Begin developing contingency plans for how the business will respond if the minimum salary threshold increases substantially to $40,000, $50,000 or even $60,000. If the salary threshold for exempt status lurches sharply upward, businesses may face a tough choice regarding whether to award employees an outsized raise in order to maintain exempt status or, instead, to convert roles to nonexempt status.
  5. Figure out what the company’s approach will be in establishing work schedules and pay rates for employees converted from exempt to nonexempt. Will the approach be to pay people hourly or to use a salary plus overtime? Will the new pay rates attempt to replicate the employee’s pre-conversion earnings and schedule, such that employees who worked, say, 45 or 50 hours a week pre-conversion will continue to work those hours and now receive premium overtime pay? Or will there be a desire to avoid the heavy marginal cost of the overtime hours, leading the business to adjust employee schedules down to 40 hours, to reduce their overall earnings accordingly and to hire additional head count to cover the workload?


Employers should begin now by talking to the managers or supervisors responsible for these exempt employees to determine the actual job duties for the employees as opposed to the stated job duties, because it’s the facts that matter most.


Employers need to know their workforce and be proactive. They should identify those exempt positions whose classification barely meets the FLSA minimum qualifications for a white-collar exemption under either the duties or compensation components. If either the duty or salary component is affected by regulatory changes, employers will know these identified positions will be targeted first.


The more lead time that a business has to grapple with these issues, the more satisfactory the process and the outcome will be for everyone.

© 2024 Administrators Advisory Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved