Effective January 1, 2026, 18 states, along with many local jurisdictions, raised their minimum wage requirements, and six states adjusted salary thresholds for exempt executive, administrative, and professional employees. Employers should review these changes and ensure ongoing compliance.

In this one-on-one interview, Courtney joins fellow Epstein Becker Green attorney George Whipple to discuss her evolution from a rule-following litigator to a trusted business advisor who helps clients navigate complex legal landscapes without compromising their goals.

Courtney shares her experience in guiding businesses through U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) wage and hour audits, emphasizing the importance of preemptive internal audits to mitigate risks and save millions in potential penalties. She also highlights her approach to evidence preservation and strategic planning when facing wage and hour class actions, ensuring her clients are prepared and protected.

Many Changes Coming in California

As it often does, California leads the way with a patchwork of minimum wage increases across localities and industries scheduled for this summer.

Los Angeles Prepares for the Olympics with Proposed Wage Increases

Employers, workers, and advocates have been closely following headlines regarding Los Angeles’s so-called “Olympic Wage” initiative. The legislation in question, Ordinance 188610, requires higher minimum wages, minimum health benefits, and training standards for employees of large hotels and employers servicing the Los Angeles International Airport (“LAX”). This is not the first time these industries have been singled out; however, this proposal specifically contemplates the upcoming 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics.

Do I have to pay my interns?

Most likely, yes—at least unless the internship is one where the intern mainly shadows and observes but performs little to no productive work.  At least under U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) guidance, internships generally are presumed to constitute an employment relationship under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—and, therefore, an employer must pay wages to its interns—unless the internship satisfies the “primary beneficiary test.”

The Amendment substantially reduces potential damages from 100% liquidated damages to lost interest on delayed payments for first-time violations of the NYLL’s frequency of pay requirements where employers otherwise paid manual workers’ wages on regular pay days, no less frequently than semi-monthly. For future violations, liquidated damages will only be available for a second or subsequent violation if there is a finding and order by the New York State Department of Labor (“NYS DOL”) or court of competent jurisdiction of a prior violation for employees performing the same work.  

The rulemaking process will take time.  FAB 2025-1 accordingly provides that, during the interim, the DOL will no longer enforce a 2024 rule established under the Biden administration.  The 2024 rule, which consisted of a non-exhaustive multi-factor test, is largely viewed as placing a difficult hurdle with respect to independent contractor classification.

FAB 2025-1 relaxes the DOL enforcement standard by reverting to the “economic reality” framework outlined in Fact Sheet #13 (July 2008), as informed by Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6. The “economic reality” framework asks whether the worker is an independent contractor in business for themselves, or an employee economically dependent on the business they serve. While this does not involve a single rule or test, significant factors include:

Quite often, the quick solution for this concern is through a traditional business arrangement: contractual indemnification.  Shifting risk of loss via contract is fairly standard, especially as courts generally enforce the unambiguous terms of the parties’ agreement.  Yet employers should take note of a concerning trend among courts across the country, which have in some cases refused to enforce indemnification agreements in Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) matters on public policy grounds.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, former veterinary assistants and technicians, filed a putative class action in July 2014 against their former employer, Vicar Operating.  Plaintiffs alleged in part that Vicar Operating had violated Labor Code section 512(a) by requiring Plaintiffs and putative class members to work shifts between five and six hours without a meal period and without waiving their right to a meal period by mutual consent.  Plaintiffs argued that as a result, Vicar owed Plaintiffs and the putative class members premiums for missed meal periods.

In drawing its conclusion, the court focused on the NJWPL’s definition of “wages,” which is defined as “direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or commission basis.” N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1(c) (emphasis added).