administrative exemption

A Trending News interview from Employment Law This Week: New Proposed Overtime Rule.

Paul DeCamp discusses the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its long-awaited proposed overtime rule on March 7, 2019. This proposed rule would take the place of the Obama-era overtime rule that was blocked by a Texas federal judge in 2017.

Watch the interview below and read our recent post.

The U.S. Department of Labor has released a proposal to update the overtime rules under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers should be prepared to raise salaries to meet the minimum thresholds, pay overtime when appropriate, and otherwise adhere to the new rules if they go into effect.

Federal overtime provisions are contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Unless exempt, employees covered by the FLSA must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. To be exempt from overtime (i.e., not entitled to receive overtime), an exemption must apply. For an exemption to apply, an employee’s specific job duties and salary must meet certain minimum requirements. The “salary test” presently requires workers to make at least $23,660 on an annual basis to be exempt from overtime.

In March 2014, President Obama directed the Secretary of Labor to update the overtime regulations in the FLSA. In May 2016, after receiving more than 270,000 comments, the Department of Labor issued a final rule that raised the minimum salary threshold to $47,476 per year. That rule was declared invalid by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Department of Labor’s appeal – at the Department’s request – in September 2017.

The Department is now proposing to formally rescind the 2016 rule and is proposing a new rule that:

  • Raises the salary threshold from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $679 per week ($35,308 per year);
  • Allows employers to include “certain nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments” as up to 10% of the new $679 per week salary threshold; and
  • Raises the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees – which are subject to a minimal duties test – from $100,000 to $147,414.

The proposed rule makes no changes to the duties test for executive, administrative, and professional employees. The Department intends to propose updates to the salary levels every four years.

More information about the proposed rule is available here. Employers with salaried employees under $35,308 annually should closely monitor the development of the rule and be prepared to adjust their pay practices. If it goes into effect, the new threshold will likely take effect in early 2020.

By: Michael D. Thompson

ESPN broadcaster Keith Olbermann recently held a mock press conference in which he pretended to be the new Commissioner of Baseball, and explained how he would improve the game in that role.  For example, World Series games would start early enough for kids to watch them, the designated hitter would be eliminated, and Vin Scully would call all World Series games.

I’d like to do something similar.  I am pleased to inform you that, for the rest of this blog entry, let’s assume that I am the new Secretary of Labor.

Effective immediately:

  1. An employer’s liability to inadvertently misclassified employees will be limited to half-time (rather than time-and-a-half) if the employer has a published policy, and receives a signed acknowledgment, stating: “I understand that my salary is intended to compensate me for all hours worked in any given workweek.”
  2. If an individual has an independently-established business, he or she is an independent contractor. Case closed. Anyone who has the wherewithal to set up his or her own business is capable of making a decision about whether the terms of a business relationship are acceptable.
  3. New Jersey’s child labor law exception allowing minors under the age of 16 to work as beekeepers is preempted by a new federal regulation to the contrary. Okay, this one does not come up much.  But do we really want a law that says a 15-year old can be left in charge of a charge of a swarm of bees?  That sounds like a Hitchcock movie.
  4. The “professional” exemption’s focus on jobs held by employees who get their advanced knowledge in school is expanded.  The exemption now extends explicitly to jobs requiring “knowledge of an advanced type customarily acquired through five or more years of on-the-job experience.”
  5. Employers do NOT have to pay employees who only worked overtime because they played fantasy football or shopped online during regular hours.
  6. The “administrative” exemption will now be called the “independent judgment” exemption, and will apply to any employee with a salary of at least $800 per week who normally exercises discretion and independent judgment. The part of the “administrative” exemption requiring that the employee’s primary duty must be administrative in nature is eliminated because the Courts never seemed clear on how to apply it.

Let’s get to work.

 

 

 

 

By Peter M. Panken, Michael S. Kun, Douglas Weiner, and Larissa Lalor-Rosado

Misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime compensation has become a cottage industry for plaintiff’s lawyers and for the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) in the Obama years.  One of the most difficult issues is whether employees meet the so-called administrative exemption to the Wage Hour laws.  In Hines v. State Room, the United States Circuit Court in New England offered some clarity and help to beleaguered employers holding that former banquet sales managers were exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The FLSA, requires overtime pay at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a seven day period unless the employee is exempt. The three pronged test for exemption for administrative employees is whether the employee is (1) salaried (paid a regular amount of at least $455 for all hours worked in a workweek); (2) the employee’s primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and (3) the employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

Plaintiffs were banquet sales managers whose job included seeking potential customers for events at the employer, developing the elements of the party or other event and submitting the proposed contract terms for approval by senior officials of the Banquet Halls.

The Court found that Plaintiffs met the first two prongs for exemption: Plaintiffs were paid on a salary basis, and their work was primarily administrative because it was ancillary to the employer’s actual business of providing banquet services.

Plaintiffs claimed that they did not meet the third prong for exemption because they lacked the authority to make any decisions of financial consequence, supervisory authority or policy-making authority.

The Court found that while the plaintiffs’ discretion in matters having significant financial impact was subject to managerial approval, such restrictions did not detract from the judgment exercised in developing a proposal for the client. Plaintiffs’ duties included maintaining primary contact with a client, tailoring an event to their needs, and overseeing the event through to execution. The Court ruled that plaintiffs exercised adequate discretion as sales people to be designated as exempt.

Other Factors Considered for Exemption

The preamble to the current DOL regulations identifies a host of factors that courts have found sufficient to demonstrate that employees exercise independent judgment. 69 Fed. Reg. at 22144. Such factors include:

·                     the ability to exercise discretion and independent judgment,

·                     freedom from direct supervision,

·                     personnel responsibilities,

·                     trouble-shooting or problem-solving activities on behalf of management,

·                     use of personalized communication techniques,

·                     authority to handle atypical or unusual situations,

·                     responsibility for assessing customer needs, primary contact to public or customers on behalf of the employer, the duty to anticipate competitive products or services and distinguish them from competitor’s products or services,

·                     advertising or promotion work, and coordination of departments, requirements or other activities for or on behalf of employer or employer’s clients or customers.

Unfortunately these factors are very fact intensive and do not provide a bright line test for exemption, But the Hines case does offer some useful precedent and guidance for employers. In any event, care must be taken to be sure that the law in a particular state or in a particular circuit does not impose a stricter limitation on the discretion and independent judgment issue.

Take-Away

An employer may retain the right to review an employee’s ability to create financial and contractual obligations and still properly classify the employee as exempt. Requiring managerial approval for these purposes does not necessarily detract from the judgment exercised by the employee at arriving at the proposal in the first place. In addition, as set forth above, there are numerous other factors that courts can consider in determining whether an employee should be designated as exempt.