The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) made the inevitable official when it recently held that employee attendance at employer-mandated meetings where employers express their views on potential unionization– often referred to as “captive-audience meetings” – violate the National Labor Relations Act. The decision overturns a 1948 Board decision and renders unlawful conduct that had been deemed lawful by the Board for more than 75 years.
Continue Reading The NLRB Overturns Decades-Old Precedent by Banning Captive-Audience MeetingsFEDERAL COURT VACATES DOL’S OVERTIME RULE
On November 15, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated the Department of Labor regulation increasing the salary amount required to qualify an employee for exempt status as an executive, administrative or professional (“EAP”) employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the so-called “EAP Exemption”). This means that the salary amount required for the EAP Exemption reverts to $684 per week (or $35,568 per year) as set forth in the rule prior to its revision (the 2019 Rule).
As our clients are well aware, the U.S. Department of Labor under the Biden Administration, after notice and comment, promulgated a revised final rule increasing the salary threshold to qualify for exempt status in two stages. The first, which became effective July 1, 2024, set the salary amount at $844/week (or $43,888 per year) with a second increase set to take effect as of January 1, 2025, to $1,128/week (or $58,656 per year). The rule also provided for automatic increases to the salary level starting on July 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter.
In its decision vacating the rule, the court ruled that the DOL exceeded the authority delegated to it by Congress by increasing the salary amount to an exceptionally high level and, in doing so, going beyond what the FLSA contemplated. In essence, the Court held that the 2024 Rule effectively displaced the duties test with a predominate, if not exclusive, salary-level test. The Court further noted that the salary threshold was historically deliberately set low, as it was designed to only screen out “obviously nonexempt employees.”
The FLSA defines the Executive, Administrative, and Professional exemptions based on the duties performed by individuals. The law also specifies that such employees must be “bona fide” in holding such status, which allows the DOL some interpretive latitude. However, the court observed, while Congress delegated interpretive authority to the DOL as to what is a “bona fide” executive, administrative, or professional employee and “to use a minimum salary level but only if that salary serves as a reasonable proxy for an employee’s exemption status.”
The court found that the impact of the substantial increases to the salary threshold, including provisions to further increase the amounts automatically every three years starting in 2027, effectively would override the duties tests set by Congress to determine an individual’s FLSA EAP exempt status. The steep increase to the salary threshold “will render nonexempt at least 2 of every 5 employees who meet the duties test, causing approximately three million EAP-exempt employees to become nonexempt on January 1. And those three million employees are in addition to the one million workers already improperly rendered nonexempt by the July 2024 increase, even though their duties have not changed.”
What this means is that employers need not consider further increasing the salaries of executive, administrative and professional employees on January 1, 2025, as would have been the case had the 2024 Rule not been vacated. Whether employers decide to look back to reduce salaries that were raised in July of this year to comply with the 2024 Regulation now vacated is a business judgment.
NLRB GC to Seek Broad Remedies for Non-Compete and Stay-or-Pay Provisions – Part II
As we noted in Part I of this special two-part blog, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued an important policy memorandum last month. In GC Memorandum 25-01, Abruzzo attacked as unlawful both “stay-or-pay” provisions (where workers agree to repay their employer for certain benefits if the employee prematurely leaves employment) and non-compete agreements. Part I covered the remedies proposed by the GC for employees subject to non-compete provisions found unlawful by the Board. Here, Part II addresses stay-or-pay provisions, the GC’s legal position that such provisions are presumptively unlawful, and the remedies she will seek for employees subject to stay-or-pay provisions.
Continue Reading NLRB GC to Seek Broad Remedies for Non-Compete and Stay-or-Pay Provisions – Part IISick Leave for Pets?
Over the years, I’ve mentioned my adorable dog many times in connection with blog posts on employment-related topics like pet bereavement leave, paw-ternity leave (i.e. pet parental leave), and Take Your Dog to Work Day. (And here he is, dressed up for Halloween – as sushi!) In addition, I’ve blogged several times about sick leave for service animals (here and here) – each time noting that there is nothing that requires employers to allow employees to take sick leave for pets. Until now?
Continue Reading Sick Leave for Pets?Maryland’s Proposed FAMLI Regulations Are Finally Here – What Do They Say?
On October 18, 2024, the Maryland Department of Labor (MDOL) finally issued its proposed regulations to implement Maryland’s paid family and medical leave insurance (FAMLI) law. Applicable to all employers with Maryland employees and starting July 1, 2026, the FAMLI law will provide most employees in Maryland with 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave, with the possibility of an additional 12 weeks of paid parental leave, as we have previously detailed in our E-lerts from April 12, 2023 and April 12, 2022.
Continue Reading Maryland’s Proposed FAMLI Regulations Are Finally Here – What Do They Say?US Department of Labor Reissues and Expands on Its AI Guidance for Employers
On October 16, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) released an updated Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) resource for employers, as well as developers, to assist them in avoiding potential harms to workers due to the use of AI and other technology. The document details practices and principles that employers may use to avoid concerns that could arise through the use of AI, and ways to avoid discriminatory or unfair treatment of employees.
Continue Reading US Department of Labor Reissues and Expands on Its AI Guidance for EmployersNLRB GC to Seek Broad Remedies for Non-Compete and Stay-or-Pay Provisions – Part I
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued an important policy memorandum this week. In GC Memorandum 25-01, Abruzzo asserts that most “stay-or-pay” provisions, where workers agree to repay their employer for certain benefits if the employee prematurely leaves employment, should be found unlawful unless narrowly tailored. The memo also sets forth broad remedies GC Abruzzo intends to seek if such provisions are held unlawful. In addition, following up on her memo that most non-compete agreements are unlawful, GC Abruzzo laid out the remedies she will seek from the Board where it holds that an employer has unlawfully enforced or applied a non-compete agreement.
This special two-part blog will cover both subjects. In this edition, we will cover the remedies proposed by the GC for employees subject to non-compete provisions found unlawful by the Board. Next week, Part II of this blog will address stay-or-pay provisions, the GC’s legal position that such provisions are presumptively unlawful, and the remedies she will seek for employees subject to stay-or-pay provisions.
Continue Reading NLRB GC to Seek Broad Remedies for Non-Compete and Stay-or-Pay Provisions – Part IThe Perjurer Pays the Piper
A former in-house attorney for Lockheed Martin not only had her retaliation claims dismissed, but found herself on the hook for over $90,000 of Lockheed Martin’s attorneys’ fees after lying about her subsequent employment under oath.
Continue Reading The Perjurer Pays the PiperEEOC Sues FedEx Over “Fully Healed” Return-to-Work Requirement
Today, I want to send an overnight letter to FedEx Corp. In that letter, I would suggest that paying attention to the competition (that is, UPS) often makes business sense and can save a company money.
Because, if FedEx had paid attention, it might have avoided a lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (fondly known by us insiders as “the EEOC”).
Continue Reading EEOC Sues FedEx Over “Fully Healed” Return-to-Work RequirementMaryland DOL Releases Updated FAQs on Paid Family and Medical Leave
As we await the proposed regulations to implement the forthcoming paid family and medical leave insurance (FAMLI) program in Maryland, the state Department of Labor previously issued resources for employers, including FAQs, to assist them in preparing for compliance, as we discussed in our May 2024 E-Update. And now the MDOL has updated and vastly expanded those FAQs to offer additional clarification.
Continue Reading Maryland DOL Releases Updated FAQs on Paid Family and Medical Leave