White Collar 925264.jpgLast month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion that essentially watered down the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime exemption for executives. This decision perhaps makes an unwitting case for President Obama’s intended overhaul of the FLSA’s white collar exemptions that we discussed recently.

An employer must satisfy four elements to take advantage of the FLSA’s executive exemption:

  • The employer must pay the worker a salary of at least $455 per week;
  • The employee’s primary duty must be management;
  • The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees; and
  • The employee must have the authority to hire or fire employees, or at least have the ability to offer suggestions and recommendations as to hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or other status changes for employees, with the employer giving particular weight to those suggestions.  29 CFR § 541.100

This four-element standard is what remained after the Department of Labor’s 2004 revisions to the FLSA regulations that ditched what were then known as the “long test” and the “short test” under the former regulations. The long test had a lower salary basis and also required the employee to have regularly exercised discretionary powers to have devoted no more than 40% of their workweek to activities not directly and closely related to management. 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (2003). The short test used a higher salary basis, but only required employees to regularly direct two or more employees and to have a primary duty of management.  Id.

Because there is no objective test for determining what an employee’s “primary duty” is or what “particular weight” means, this has led to substantial litigation, including the Eighth Circuit’s Madden v. Lumber One Home Center decision last month.Continue Reading I’m an Executive, You’re an Executive, We’re All Executives! 8th Circuit Lowers the Bar for FLSA “Executive” Exemption

crystalball25942067.jpgLast month, I wrote about the Obama Administration’s Presidential Memorandum to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) instructing its Secretary to update regulations regarding overtime protection for workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law that establishes minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.  Since then, DOL Secretary Perez has spoken publicly about

Yesterday, we discussed the first part of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Mitchell v. JCG Industries penned by Judge Richard Posner. 

As discussed in yesterday’s post, in Mitchell, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision dismissing an FLSA and Illinois Minimum Wage Law claim where unionized poultry processing plant workers alleged they

US Department of Labor logo.jpgRecently on Twitter, I commented that revising the FLSA regulations won’t be quick or easy. Speaking of Twitter, if you’re not following @WageHourInsight yet, why not? I find lots of interesting tidbits every day that don’t make it here to the blog, and you can follow along with some of the more free-wheeling conversations HR professionals have on the very same topics we discuss here. 

My comment on Twitter should come with the added caveat: if they’re revised correctly. Merely increasing the minimum salary (the focus of the Secretary’s recent blog post) for the white collar exemption is not enough. Want some examples? DOL Secretary Perez referred to the Family Dollar case as an example of where the “primary duty” test revisions by the Bush administration swept up far more employees than he believes the FLSA intended. Need another? Tip credits. Continue Reading FLSA Revisions Won’t be Quick or Easy

In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FLSA does not require unionized employers to compensate employees for time spent putting on and taking off certain protective clothing if they have a collective bargaining agreement that excludes this time as compensable work time.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s regulations

Supreme Court.jpgIn the 2013 – 2014 Supreme Court term, the Court will hear and decide a number of cases affecting employers, including one FLSA case. 

Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.: The Court will consider what constitutes “changing clothes” under the FLSA. Under §203(o) of the FLSA, an employer need not compensate a worker for time

On May 8, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow private sector employers to offer hourly workers the option of taking compensatory (“comp”) time in lieu of paid overtime.  The bill seeks to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow private sector employers to offer comp time at a rate of

Guest Author: Lindsey Marcus

Supreme Court building.JPGSome good news for employers. In a recent 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that collective-action claims brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are moot when the named plaintiff has no continuing personal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit and no motion for conditional certification has been