New FLSA Overtime Regulations: Planning for Costs of Compliance
The new overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act's "White-Collar Exemptions" will be effective Dec. 1, 2016, barring action on recently…
November 08, 2016 at 06:29 AM
5 minute read
The new overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act's “White-Collar Exemptions” will be effective Dec. 1, 2016, barring action on recently proposed legislation and recently filed lawsuits. The minimum salary necessary for an employee to qualify for exemption from overtime will be $913/week or $47,476/year, and will increase every three years.
Appropriate business planning requires employers to understand the math and associated costs to inform decision-making and achieve compliance.
The requisite analysis must be undertaken with respect to all U.S. employees currently classified as exempt but earning less than $47,476 per year. Employers must either adjust the salary of target employees to try to maintain their exempt classification or reclassify target employees as non-exempt and overtime eligible. The anticipated costs will vary based upon this threshold decision and as the result of the different options for structuring compensation within each category.
With respect to employees as to whom exempt status is sought to be maintained, employers have three primary options for structuring pay. Irrespective of the method chosen, an employer must nevertheless ensure that the new salary is paid on a “salary basis,” and that the employee satisfies either the executive, administrative or professional “duties tests.”
1. Raise the salary of any employee earning less than $47,476 per year to an amount equal to or in excess thereof. For employees who are compensated by salary alone, the math and overall cost is straightforward: An employer will realize a cost of $7,476 with respect to an employee earning $40,000 per year.
2. Explore a reconfiguration of compensation if the employee earns a salary in addition to other pay (i.e., an annual bonus). For example, if the employee earned a $10,000 bonus in addition to the $40,000 annual salary, the employer can reduce the bonus by $5,000 and add this amount to the employee's salary. The employer would thus realize a cost of only $2,746 to achieve compliance. Commission plans, incentive pay schemes, and benefit structures can also be adjusted to similar effect.
3. Take advantage of a provision in the new regulations that allows up to 10 percent of the $47,476 salary to be met by other compensation such as non-discretionary bonuses, incentive pay or commissions. Thus, an employer can increase the salary to $42,728.40, provided the employee earns an additional $4,747.60 through these other means. Note, however, that if this provision is relied upon, these supplemental payments must be made on at least a quarterly basis.
With respect to employees an employer decides to reclassify as non-exempt overtime eligible, an employer has three primary options for structuring pay.
1. Convert the weekly salary into an hourly rate and pay overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 on the basis of that rate.
The simplest conversion method is to divide the employee's current weekly salary by 40 hours. Assuming an $800 weekly salary, this would result in a $20 “regular rate” and a $30 overtime rate. The anticipated cost increase will vary based on overtime hours worked, from $0 if the employee consistently works 40 hours per week to $300 if the employee works 50 hours per week. This conversion method is potentially the most costly and should be used only where expected overtime hours are close to zero.
A more complicated conversion method is to divide the weekly salary by regular hours and expected overtime hours. Under this method, if the employer expects that 10 overtime hours will be worked, the $800 weekly salary will be divided by 55. The 55 consists of 40 regular hours and 10 overtime hours, with the latter multiplied by 1.5 to account for the time-and-a-half premium. The regular rate would be $14.54 and the overtime rate would be $21.82, resulting in roughly equal earnings if the expected overtime hours are worked. This method is the most cost neutral and can be used to approximate total weekly earnings prior to reclassification provided the employer gains an accurate understanding of total hours worked.
2. Choose a new hourly rate altogether upon which overtime would be paid. The only restriction is that the employee continues to earn at least the applicable minimum wage. An hourly wage of $17, roughly midway between the two prior examples, results in total weekly earnings of $935 if 10 overtime hours were worked. While this method allows for controlled cost increases or savings, it lacks an objective rationale and may prove difficult to communicate to affected employees.
3. Convert the employee to non-exempt status, but continue to pay the employee on a salary basis. An employee treated in this matter will, however, be eligible for overtime. As above, there are various manners in which to proceed, each of which have different cost outcomes.
Employers can divide the $800 weekly salary by 40 hours to achieve a regular rate of $20/hour, and pay for any overtime at the rate of $30/hour. This is the simplest, but most expensive, approach. The expense is compounded by the payment of the weekly salary even if the full 40 hours are not worked.
Brian D. Murphy, a partner in the labor & employment practice group at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton in New York, can be reached at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClass Action Claims Amazon's Point-Based Attendance Policy Is Discriminatory, Suit Says
3 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trump’s Firing of NLRB Member Could Spark Review of Supreme Court Precedent
Testing Legal Authority, Trump Fires NLRB Member, Leaving Panel Without Quorum
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250