Overtime Update

What happened to the Obama administration’s proposed new rule on employee eligibility for overtime pay?  Seven months into the Trump administration, do we know what to expect?  Recent events provide some clarity on these questions.

A year ago, many employers were preparing to implement a new rule adopted by the U.S. Department of Labor, under which employees would have to earn more than $913.00 per week to be eligible for most exemptions from overtime requirements.  The rule, which was scheduled to take effect December 1, 2016, was forcing employers to consider whether to reclassify employees from FLSA-exempt to overtime-eligible, restructure their jobs, or give them significant raises.  It was estimated that 4 million employees would be affected.

Then, on November 22, 2016, a U.S. district court in Texas entered an injunction blocking implementation of the new rule.  Significantly, the court did not just find that the new salary threshold was too high; it held that the Department of Labor, in exercising its authority to “define and delimit” the overtime exemptions, lacked the power to set any salary threshold for exempt status. (The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that the DOL’s exemption  regulations have included a salary threshold for over 70 years, without objection from the courts in any of the myriad cases that have considered various aspects of those regulations.)  See our previous post on the decision here.

The DOL appealed from the district court’s decision, and sought an expedited schedule in hopes of getting an appellate court ruling before the impending change in administrations.  But January 20, 2017, came before briefing was completed, and over the next several months the new administration sought and received three successive extensions of time to file its reply brief in support of the appeal, while it sorted out what position it would take.

Meanwhile, the new Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, went on the public record with comments that the overtime salary threshold ought to be increased, but not to the level set in the proposed rule.  He was quoted as favoring a threshold in the low $30,000 range.

Secretary Acosta’s comments suggested something of a dilemma for the new administration – while it was satisfied with the result reached by the court in Texas (enjoining implementation of the Obama administration’s rule), the Secretary appeared not to want to concede that the Department of Labor lacked authority to set any threshold at all, as the district court had held.  Other members of the administration, generally favoring less regulation and more limited government, may well have supported the district court’s reasoning in that regard.

The more moderate views appear to have prevailed, as on June 30th the DOL filed a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals defending its authority to set a minimum salary to qualify for exempt status, but not seeking to reinstate the Obama administration’s 2016 rule.  Instead, the DOL has announced that it will conduct a new rulemaking process to determine what the exempt salary threshold should be.

So for the foreseeable future the threshold remains at $455/week ($475/week in Connecticut).  The public will have another opportunity for input as a new proposed rule is developed.  Perhaps an attempt will be made to address the vagueness of the duties tests for the white-collar exemptions as well as the salary threshold; the Obama DOL elected not to propose any changes to those regulations.

It will also be interesting to see whether the Trump administration de-emphasizes enforcement of the overtime rules generally.  The proposed DOL budget for 2017-18 is significantly less than the current year’s budget, and while we don’t know specifically what enforcement efforts are slated for the most significant cuts, wage and hour enforcement isn’t especially popular with those in the Trump administration who favor significantly less regulation and smaller government.  It would not be a surprise to see the DOL take a less aggressive approach in this area.  Of course, whatever happens in Washington, Connecticut employers should expect the State DOL to continue vigorous enforcement of wage/hour laws.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page