Employers rejoice! The Trump administration continues to roll back the anti-business positions asserted by various federal agencies under the Obama administration, as most recently evidenced by the Department of Labor’s June 7, 2017 withdrawal of two Administrator Interpretations on joint employment and independent contractor status. Continue Reading DOL Withdraws Guidance Documents on Joint Employment and Independent Contractor Status
Can prior salary justify a pay differential, or does it necessarily perpetuate sex-based pay discrimination? This was the subject of a recent Equal Pay Act (EPA) case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in which the court bucked the recent trend of connecting prior salary with pay discrimination against females.
The EPA is a federal law that prohibits discrimination between employees on the basis of sex by paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for equal work. It bears noting that the law applies to both sexes. Under the EPA, a Plaintiff must show that he or she is receiving different wages for “equal work.” If the Plaintiff makes that showing, the burden shifts to the employer to assert any of a number of affirmative defenses to explain the wage disparity, including: Continue Reading Is Setting Pay Based on Prior Salary the Same as Setting Pay Based on Sex?
I have been watching, with interest and trepidation, the Baltimore City Council’s proposal to raise the minimum wage in the City to $15/hour by 2022. While I certainly understand the desire to “share the wealth” and to ensure a decent living standard, as several Council members have stated, I am very concerned about the unintended consequences of this well-meaning action – particularly on non-profit organizations. Continue Reading Thoughts on the Fight for Fifteen from a Management Lawyer
For nearly 35 years, automobile dealers relied on the U.S. Department of Labor’s position that service advisors fell within the Fair Labor Standards Act’s exemption from overtime for “salesmen, partsmen, or mechanics primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” In 2011, the DOL “upended” this interpretation by issuing regulations specifying that the exemption did not apply to “sales personnel” unless they sell vehicles. Thus, service advisors were deemed non-exempt.
In June 2016, in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 15-415, 2016 WL 3369424 (2016), the Supreme Court held that the 2011 regulation was not entitled to deference because it was issued without the requisite reasoned explanation for a change. The Court did not decide whether service advisors are, or are not, exempt. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (which had decided the case below) with instructions that the appellate court not give any deference to the DOL’s regulations. In other words, the appellate court should review the duties of the position (the sale of repair and maintenance services) and decide if the duties fell within the statutory exemption.
Today, December 1, 2016, the Department of Labor issued a press release announcing that it had filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit of the emergency nationwide injunction of the new overtime rule, which had been granted last week by Judge Amos Mazzant, as discussed in our November 23 blog, “Overtime Rule Will Not Take Effect on December 1.” The preliminary injunction temporarily blocked the DOL’s new rule raising the required minimum salary level for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s white-collar exemptions from the requirement to pay overtime pay. The rule was set to go into effect on December 1st.
As discussed in our May 18, 2016 E-lert, in order to be exempt from overtime, a white-collar employee must meet three tests: (1) the salary basis test – the employee must be paid on a salary basis, not subject to reductions for fluctuations in quantity or quality of work; (2) the salary level test – the employee’s salary must currently be at least $455 per week (equaling $23,660 per year); and (3) a duties test – the employee must perform certain duties specific to the executive, administrative or professional exemption in question. There is also a highly-compensated employee exemption under which an employee must currently make at least $100,000 per year and perform at least one exempt duty.
The DOL’s revised rule would have doubled the salary requirement for white collar (executive, administrative and professional) employees from $23,660 per year ($455 per week) to $47,476 per year ($913 per week). The required minimum salary for the highly compensated employees’ exemption would also have been raised from $100,000 to $134,004. These salary levels would have been subject to automatic adjustments every three years. The new rule did not change the duties test for any of the exemptions.
The new rule was challenged by 21 states and multiple business groups, arguing that such change was unlawful. In issuing the preliminary injunction, the judge agreed, noting that the rule change “creates essentially a de facto salary-only test,” which Congress had not intended. In the press release, however, the DOL stated, “The Department’s Overtime Final Rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rule-making process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule.”
A federal judge in Texas has issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Department of Labor’s revised overtime exemption rule from taking effect as scheduled on December 1, 2016.
As discussed in our May 18, 2016 E-lert, in order to be exempt from overtime, a white-collar employee must meet three tests: (1) the salary basis test – the employee must be paid on a salary basis, not subject to reductions for fluctuations in quantity or quality of work; (2) the salary level test – the employee’s salary must currently be at least $455 per week (equaling $23,660 per year); and (3) a duties test – the employee must perform certain duties specific to the executive, administrative or professional exemption in question. There is also a highly-compensated employee exemption under which an employee must currently make at least $100,000 per year and perform at least one exempt duty. Continue Reading Overtime Rule Will Not Take Effect On December 1
I enjoy those cases where those (sometimes uppity) government agencies get a taste of their own medicine. I previously told you about the EEOC being sued for failing to accommodate its own employee’s disability, for example. Here’s another one – the U.S. Department of Labor, which is the federal agency that enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including its overtime provisions, just agreed to pay $7 MILLION to settle a claim that it failed to pay overtime to its own employees!!! Continue Reading DOL Settles Its Own Multi-Million Dollar Overtime Suit
The Department of Labor has issued revised versions of its “Employee Rights Under the Fair Labor Standards Act – Federal Minimum Wage” and “Employee Rights – Employee Polygraph Protection Act” posters, which all covered employers are required to post. Employers must post the revised versions as of August 1, 2016. Continue Reading Revised Mandatory Fair Labor Standards Act and Employee Polygraph Protection Act Posters Effective August 1, 2016
On May 17, 2016, the Department of Labor announced the release of its long-awaited revisions to its overtime exemption rule. The new rule doubles the salary requirement for white collar (executive, administrative and professional) employees from $23,660 per year ($455 per week) to $47,476 per year ($913 per week). The required minimum salary for the highly compensated employees’ exemption also has been raised from $100,000 to $134,004. These salary levels will be subject to automatic adjustments every three years. The new rule does not change the duties test for any of the exemptions. It will take effect on December 1, 2016. Our firm will be holding a complimentary webinar on Wednesday, May 25 to discuss the changes and offer practical suggestions on how to comply with the new rules. Continue Reading NEW OVERTIME RULE
As you may know, I enjoy the cases where the tables are turned – like my colleague Jason Usher’s post on “Union Violates Employee’s Labor Rights” or my blog on “EEOC Sued For Failing to Accommodate Employee’s Disability.” Here’s another.
From time to time, my clients have had to deal with lying employees. They lie in an investigation, they lie to the federal agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Department of Labor, they lie in depositions and at trial. And they’re good at it – it’s often hard to prove that they are lying, which is incredibly frustrating to my clients and to m Continue Reading Lying Employee Faces Prison Time