This is a post I certainly didn’t expect to be writing even 12 hours ago, but now that the results of the election are clear, it’s time to give some thought to what lies ahead under the forthcoming Trump administration. Details will of course start to emerge over the next couple of months, but I have a few early predictions about what employers should and should not expect.

  1. An eventual repeal of the new FLSA overtime rules just became much more likely. While it would take time for President Trump’s labor department to go through the process of issuing new regulations to replace those set to take effect December 1, it is highly likely that Congress will address the issue through legislation now that the likelihood of a veto by a Democratic president has been removed. The real question is whether such legislation would simply roll back to the old minimum salary level of $455 per week, or, as some in Congress have proposed, phase in a more gradual increase over the next few years.
  2. We don’t know what will happen with the new exemption rules between now and January when Trump takes office. There are a few different possibilities. One is that the Obama administration will stay the course and move forward with the rules as if nothing has changed. Employers (at least, those who want to be in compliance with the law) will have to move forward with reclassifying employees and making other necessary changes to their compensation structures and payroll practices by December 1. If the law later changes, those employers will need to make some decisions about whether to roll any changes back or just leave well enough alone. A second possibility is that the Obama administration might delay any DOL enforcement actions under the new rules in anticipation of legislation under the new administration. I have no inside knowledge here, but that seems unlikely. The current DOL is strongly committed to the new rules and likely wants to see employers implement changes in the hopes that they will stick even if Congress enacts legislation lowering the salary level once again. Also, even if the DOL does not itself take action to enforce the new rules, the rules remain law unless they’re overturned either by a new rule (which must go through an extensive rulemaking process, just as the current rule did) or by an act of Congress. So even if the DOL does not go after employers who are not in compliance with the new rules, that does not stop private litigants, or for that matter state labor departments in states that (like Illinois) mirror the federal rules in their state overtime laws. There are a couple of other outside possibilities. One is that the current Congress strikes a deal with the lame-duck Obama administration to enact legislation preserving some increase in the minimum salary but phasing it in over time. If done quickly this might save employers from having to make changes now and reverse course later. While that might be the sensible approach to the problem, I’m not holding my breath. The other wild card here is the pending lawsuits seeking to overturn the new rules. While most legal experts don’t give them a high likelihood of success, stranger things have happened.
  3. The DOL’s posture toward employers is likely to change – eventually. Under the Obama administration, it seems fair to say that the U.S. Department of Labor has become much more aggressive in pursuing enforcement action against employers and in using administrative action to impose new restrictions on employers. The DOL has hired more investigators and field staff, and anecdotally I can certainly report that more of our clients are being visited by DOL agents in the last couple of years than was previously the case. But that did not happen overnight when President Obama took office. The federal government is a huge ship, and it takes a long time to change direction. It seems likely that the Trump administration will seek to rein in the Department of Labor, particularly in its more aggressive initiatives to change (or, as the DOL would probably put it, fill in the gaps) in existing law through “Administrator Interpretations” and rulemaking. It’s also likely that the DOL will see its enforcement budgets cut, meaning fewer audits. However, just as it took time for the Obama administration to change the DOL’s course from the relatively business-friendly one set under President Bush, employers should not expect to see these changes until the new administration has had time to put its own team in place, establish budget priorities, and make the other policy changes needed to effect their vision for the agency.
  4. State and local governments will continue to ramp up their regulations. While employers may welcome some of the changes that they are likely to see at the federal level under the new Trump administration, those changes are likely to accelerate the recent trend of state and local governments enacting their own regulations on employers, at least in the remaining “blue” strongholds around the country. This may further complicate the lives of HR professionals whose organizations operate across multiple jurisdictions.

Of course employers should take all of these predictions with a very large grain of salt because, frankly, we don’t know what is going happen now. For the time being, the best advice that we can give to employers is to stay the course, keep preparing for the new FLSA exemption rules set to take effect on December 1, and wait to see where the dust settles. But also be prepared for further changes that may well be on their way.

As we have reported over the last couple of months, there have been recent attempts by business groups and states to block the U.S. DOL’s new overtime exemption rule from taking effect on December 1, 2016. Despite these efforts, no court has yet to issue any ruling.  With just 30 days to go, employers should not pin all of their hopes on a last minute reprieve from the new minimum salary threshold requirement.  Instead, employers must continue to prepare to comply with the new rule.  With states having various state notification requirements, please keep in mind that a change in classification may require advance notice to employees before December 1.  Employers should consult their applicable state laws and plan accordingly.

We will continue to provide updates on this pressing issue.

In our last post we reported that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and fifty-plus other business groups suing to block the U.S. DOL’s overtime  exemption rule from taking effect had not yet moved to expedite the court’s ruling on the case, making it unlikely that the court would issue any sort of ruling before the rules take effect on December 1, 2016. Well, now they have. In a motion for expedited summary judgment filed Friday October 14, the business groups are now asking the court to rule on the merits of their case on the same timetable as is set for its hearing of the motion for preliminary injunction in the parallel lawsuit being pursued by a coalition of 21 states. On Monday, the business groups followed up with a motion asking the court to consolidate their case with the parallel state lawsuit. According to the motion, the states and the DOL do not oppose consolidating the cases.

The Court’s docket indicates that the DOL’s response to the motion for summary judgment is due on October 31, 2016. The DOL’s response to the states’ parallel motion for a preliminary injunction is likewise due on October 31, with the states’ reply due on November 10 and any sur-reply by the DOL due on November 15. The motion is set for hearing on November 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

Both cases are pending before District Judge Amos L. Mazzant. Mazzant was nominated to the bench by President Obama in 2014. He previously served as a United States Magistrate Judge from 2009 to 2014, and as a justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas from 2004 to 2009.

It is conceivable that these combined cases could offer employers some relief from the new rules before the effective date. But we’re not holding our breath. While employers might sensibly delay announcing any changes while these lawsuits play out, they should still be preparing to comply by December 1.

On September 20 we reported about a lawsuit by 21 states seeking to block the U.S. DOL’s new overtime exemption rules. This week, the states followed up their complaint by filing an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction, asking the court to block enforcement of the new rule pending a final ruling on the states’ claims. According to the court’s docket no hearing date has been set.

There have been no further developments in a similar lawsuit filed on the same day by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business groups. To date, the business groups have not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court’s docket reflects that the Labor Department’s answer to the complaint is not due until November 21, 2016.

At this point, we cannot recommend that employers pin their hopes on these lawsuits to relieve them from having to comply with the new FLSA exemption rules effective December 1, 2016.

Note: This post has been corrected. The original post stated that the Chamber of Commerce lawsuit does not challenge the base salary increase included in the new rule. It does. 

Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives passed a bill, H.R. 6094 (the “bill” referred to as the Regulatory Relief for Small Businesses, Schools and Nonprofits Act), that would delay the effective date of the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule by 6 months, from December 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017.  The Vote passed the House 246-177, with 5 Democrats voting in favor of it.  This is just the latest challenge to the DOL’s doubling of the minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional) under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Business groups, congressional Republicans and State Officials have all criticized the drastic economic impact such a measure would have on businesses.

Continue Reading House Votes to Delay OT Rule But Employers Are Not Out of the Woods Yet

US-Department-of-Labor-logo.jpgYesterday, a group of 21 states filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas challenging the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule, which is set to take effect on December 1, 2016.  The group challenging the rule is led by Texas and Nevada, and includes the following states:  Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin. The lawsuit names as Defendants the DOL and its Wage and Hour Division, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez, and Wage and Hour Administrator David Weil, and Assistant Administrator for Policy Mary Ziegler.

As most know by now, in May 2016, the DOL issued its final rule establishing a new minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This new threshold of $913 per week ($47,476 annualized) more than doubles the current minimum weekly salary threshold of $455 per week ($23,660 annualized), and is scheduled to increase every three years.

Continue Reading 21 States File Suit Challenging the DOL’s New Overtime Rule

Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court punted on the question of whether “Service Advisers” or “Service Writers” at auto dealerships fall within the Fair Labor Standards Act’s exemption for “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” For those outside of the auto industry, these are the people who greet you when you pull into the service department and communicate with you about what work your car might need. Since the question of whether service advisers count as “salesmen” may not be definitively resolved for some time yet, many auto dealers find themselves looking for other overtime exemptions that may apply to these positions.

The Section 7(i) Exemption

The “white collar” exemptions for executive, administrative, and professional employees don’t fit because service advisers don’t perform the sorts of job duties that fall under those exemptions, and many of them are paid mostly on commission rather than on a salary basis. There is, however, another exemption that may apply to at least some service advisers. Section 7(i) of the FLSA creates an exemption that applies when all three of the following conditions are met:

  1. The employee must be employed by a retail or service establishment.
  2. The employee’s regular rate of pay must exceed one and one half times the minimum wage for every hour worked in a workweek in which any overtime hours are worked.
  3. More than half of the employee’s total earnings in a “representative period” must consist of “commissions.”

Continue Reading What Is The Section 7(i) Exemption And Does It Apply To Auto Dealer Service Advisers?

FLSA Poster imageRegular readers may have noticed that this blog took a bit of a hiatus over the summer while the authors spent some time away from work, and then working to catch up from the time away. Now that summer is winding down, the kids are heading back to school and life is starting to return to a more normal routine, it’s time to catch up on some wage and hour developments over the last month or so.

One of those developments is the release of a new FLSA minimum wage poster by the U.S. Department of Labor. The poster can be downloaded in .pdf format from the DOL website. Print copies will, according to the DOL, “be available for order soon.”

The DOL has also issued an updated poster under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), also available for download from the DOL website in .pdf form.

If you haven’t done so already, you should immediately print or obtain a copy of the new posters and post them in a “conspicuous place” in your establishment so that employees can readily read them.

TipJar_cropped14346183.jpgHospitality industry employers take note: If you claim a “tip credit” toward the minimum wage for any of your employees, you need to make sure that all tips are properly distributed to employees. A recent case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a Texas restaurant chain illustrates the hazards of making a mistake with the tip credit rules. Steele v. Leasing Enterprises, Ltd. (.pdf)

Here’s a summary of this cautionary tale:

Tip Credit Background

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers are require to pay most employees at least $7.25 per hour. The FLSA allows tips received by employees to count for up to $5.12 of this total, meaning that an employer can pay tipped employees as little as $2.13 per hour so long as their tips are sufficient to make up the difference between their hourly wage and the federal minimum wage. But there are some restrictions. Employers can take advantage of this “tip credit” only if three conditions are met: Continue Reading Here’s a tip: Don’t skim from employee tips

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro case, that many hoped would resolve the issue as to whether Service Advisors at auto dealerships are exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  As we reported back in January 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition filed by an auto dealership, Encino Motorcars, challenging a Ninth Circuit decision holding that Service Advisors were not exempt from overtime pay requirements.  Encino asked that the Court “restore uniformity” in legal precedent and hold that Service Advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements.  Auto dealers were hoping that the Supreme Court would bring certainty to this issue and follow prior decisions from the Fourth and Fifth Circuits holding that Service Advisors are salespeople exempt from overtime, instead of following the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision.  Although the Supreme Court ultimately vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court’s opinion leaves the issue open to further consideration. Continue Reading The Supreme Court Shoots Down DOL Regulations, But Declines To Rule Whether Service Advisors are Exempt From Overtime Pay Requirements