As we previously reported in the post “The return of Department of Labor Opinion Letters,” the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) began issuing opinion letters again in mid-2017 after a six-plus-year hiatus. On April 12, 2018, the DOL issued an opinion letter, FLSA 2018-19, regarding when FMLA-mandated breaks for intermittent leave for an employee’s serious health condition are paid and when they are unpaid.
Continue Reading New DOL opinion letter may provide clarity as to when FMLA-mandated breaks are paid and when they are unpaid

Many employers allow students to intern in their workplaces so that the students can gain exposure to real world work, learn about a particular industry or career, or earn credit hours towards their degree requirements. If these interns are unpaid, however, employers risk liability for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employers that enter into these arrangements without careful consideration of the FLSA risk lawsuits from former interns and United States Department of Labor (DOL) investigations.
Continue Reading New test should increase employer ability to create unpaid internship positions

Many thanks to Arslan Sheikh for his assistance in preparing this post.

In a decision issued on April 2, 2018 the Supreme Court of the United States held in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro that service advisors at an auto dealership are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime pay requirement. Most importantly, the Court also rejected the 9th Circuit’s holding and Department of Labor policy that FLSA exemptions should be construed narrowly. Instead, courts should apply a fairness test to determine whether a particular job is covered under the exempt classifications of the act. As a result, employers should be aware of this recent decision and consider how it may apply to them.
Continue Reading Recent Supreme Court decision holds that FLSA exemptions are to be construed fairly

Many thanks to Arslan Sheikh for his assistance in preparing this post.

Last week, a federal judge in Texas struck down a proposed Obama-era rule that would have expanded the number of workers who qualify for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The proposed rule

In 2016, the Obama administration’s Department of Labor (DOL) planned to implement a new rule that would have more than doubled the minimum salary threshold for “exempt” status under the FLSA from $23,660 to $47,476 per year. Under the DOL’s proposed rule, an employee who made an annual salary below $47,476 would have been entitled to overtime pay for all hours worked beyond 40 a week. We last reported on the proposed salary increase in November of 2016, when federal court Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the DOL’s rule. Our blog post outlines the Texas court’s holding and rationale.

What happened this week?

On Aug. 31, Judge Mazzant issued another decision, striking down the Obama administration’s proposed salary threshold rule. As a result, the minimum salary for exempt status under the FLSA will remain, for the time being at least, at $23,600.

Judge Mazzant held that the DOL exceeded its authority by issuing the proposed rule because the department focused too heavily on employees’ salary-levels, rather than their job duties, to determine if they were exempt from overtime under the FLSA. Judge Mazzant struck down the rule, holding that because the DOL’s proposed rule would have doubled the annual salary threshold from $23,660 to $47,476, it would have made salary-level the predominant factor in determining who is exempt from overtime under the FLSA. It should be noted, however, that Judge Mazzant did not rule on the general lawfulness of a salary-level test; he only evaluated the salary-level test the DOL proposed in this instance.
Continue Reading Texas district court strikes down Obama DOL’s proposed overtime rule

On June 27, 2017 the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced it would reinstate the practice of issuing Opinion Letters. The Wage and Hour Division will once again use Opinion Letters to provide guidance to employers and employees on various topics.

Under the Obama Administration, the DOL stopped issuing Opinion Letters in favor of the more broad “Administrator Interpretations.” Between 2010 and 2016, the DOL only published 11 Administrator Interpretations. Two of these 11 Interpretations were recently rescinded, as we previously reported.
Continue Reading The return of Department of Labor Opinion Letters

On June 7, 2017 the Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, announced that the US Department of Labor (DOL) was withdrawing its 2015 and 2016 guidance on joint employment and independent contractors. The Obama-era guidance expanded how joint employment was defined to include employers that have indirect or potential control over the terms and conditions of

Much has been written recently about the first 100 days of the Trump Administration. Some would argue that little of significance has changed in the employment regulation world. But, the confirmation on April 27, 2017 of new Secretary of Labor R. Alexander Acosta squeaked through the door just before the first 100 days concluded and it could be an initial step towards the sort of employment regulation reform that many in the business community have been expecting.

Secretary Acosta will lead the Department of Labor (DOL), the cabinet department responsible for, among other agencies, the federal Wage and Hour Division (WHD), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The WHD regulates minimum wage and overtime compliance, including the related exemptions and FMLA compliance. Of course OSHA regulates workplace safety and the OFCCP enforces affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and subcontractors. Clearly, Secretary Acosta will have an opportunity to impact significant areas of employment regulation, though the specific impact remains to be seen. The new Secretary’s early public remarks understandably have been general and focused on broadly-stated objectives to preserve and return jobs. But will the path to that aim include significant changes in existing and proposed employment regulations?
Continue Reading New Secretary of Labor sworn in

As of yesterday, employers who have not yet fully implemented changes in preparation for the new salary basis increase should put those plans on hold because a Texas federal court issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the rule while it evaluates the legality of the rule. The salary required for exempt status for executive, administrative, and professional employees  (EAP or white collar employees) will remain at $23,660 or $455 per week. (Employees, of course, must meet the respective duties tests.) Any employers who had planned to raise exempt employees’ salaries to $47,476 or convert them to non-exempt status can place those plans on indefinite hold. We recognize, however, that it may be difficult and bad for employee relations to roll back already announced or implemented salary increases. Each employer should evaluate the financial and good will costs of rolling back salary increases made to comply with the new rule or keeping them in place.
Continue Reading Texas court enjoins new salary basis rule set to go into effect December 1st

When we last reported on the status of the U.S. Department of Labor’s controversial “Persuader Rule,” it was to inform you that on June 27, 2016, a federal district court in Texas had issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked the DOL’s new interpretation of the rule from taking effect. We are pleased to report