Gross McGinley LLP

Blog Disclaimer

Blog Disclaimer

This Blog is intended for educational and informational purposes and intended to only provide you with a general understanding of the law, not to provide any legal advice, including on the subject of the Blog. Laws that may pertain to this Blog will vary by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to you. The content within this Blog is not intended, and should not be construed, in any way to be legal advice and thus you should not rely on any information provided in the Blog as legal advice. You should consult with appropriate legal counsel concerning any issues for which legal advice may be needed. Your review or use of the Blog and the content therein is not intended to create, and does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Please contact us if you have any questions about a Blog or would like more information, but, by contacting us, no attorney-client relationship is formed between you and Gross McGinley, LLP, including the Blog author. Do not send any confidential information to Gross McGinley, LLP or the authors of the Blog without first speaking to one of our lawyers and receiving our permission to provide confidential information. Unsolicited confidential information sent to us may not be subject to an attorney-client privilege and may not be treated as confidential. This Blog is not published for advertising or solicitation purposes. Gross McGinley, LLP disclaims all liability to all persons for any claim, loss, liability or any damages that may arise in connection with the Blog and any content or information contained in the Blog. Even though we strive to create our Blog content based on our current understanding of the law, we cannot and do not guarantee that the content and information in the Blog is current, accurate, or complete. Gross McGinley, LLP owns the copyright in the Blog, which is protected by federal and state laws, including copyright laws. The Blog cannot be altered or modified in any way. A copy of the Blog may be used and printed only for personal, educational, informational and noncommercial purposes. The Blog cannot be used for any other purpose without the express permission of Gross McGinley, LLP.

Current Landscape for Defining Exempt Employee Under FLSA

Written by: Loren L. Speziale on August 17, 2017 | Category: Blog | Tags:

This time last year, employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act were conducting in-depth analyses of the exempt versus non-exempt classifications of their employees. Specifically, businesses considered whether exempt employees met the duties test for an executive, administrative professional, outside sales and computer employees as well as whether they met the Department of Labor’s salary level test that was to go into effect on December 1, 2016. That salary level test, which revised the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime rule, contemplated an initial increase in the salary threshold from $455 to $913 per week, with future automatic increases every three years. On the eve of the effective date of that revised rule, also referred to as the Final Rule, the United States District Court of Eastern District of Texas issued an injunction that prohibited the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing the Final Rule. That injunction remains in place as of this date.

In the meantime, the Department of Labor has stated that it intends to revise the Final Rule and the current Department of Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta, has gone on record as supporting an increase in the salary threshold to $33,000 per year or $635 per week.  On July 26, 2017, the Department of Labor published a request for information where it is asking the public for comments on questions relating to the Final Rule and in particular, the salary level test, the duties, test, the inclusion of non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payment to satisfy the salary test, and the automatic increases to the salary level test.  The public has until September 25, 2017 to provide its comments to the Department of Labor.

While this issue remains unsettled, employers should expect that a new salary level test, at an amount higher than the current minimum but lower than the Final Rule, will ultimately be proposed by the Department of Labor in the near future. Any increase in the current salary level test will result in additional employees becoming automatically entitled to overtime for actual hours worked over 40.

As employers await direction on this pending salary threshold issue, it is recommended that routine audits of employee classifications be conducted in order to ensure each employee designated as exempt does, in fact, meet the duties test. For example, the term “manager” in a job title does not automatically deem an employee exempt from overtime. Rather, it is the primary job duties and work performed by that employee that dictates the exempt or non-exempt classification of an employee. Proper classification is critical in order to avoid the harsh consequences of employee misclassification, which includes liability for back overtime wage, liquidated damages, and potentially an employee’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

Attorney Loren Speziale serves as Chair of Gross McGinley’s Employment Group, counseling employers in matters related to FLSA and ADA requirements, employee handbooks and policies, agreements and contracts, wage and hour issues, discrimination complaints and investigations, and more.

Next Previous
View All Attorneys
View All Practice Areas
View Blog