Happy New Year — See You at the Pay Window or See You in Court
Come New Year's Day, some employees are getting a raise, some will start taking home overtime, and others will be taking the boss to court. Any way you slice this, employers will be footing the bill.
September 24, 2019 at 04:40 PM
5 minute read
Come New Year's Day, some employees are getting a raise, some will start taking home overtime, and others will be taking the boss to court. Any way you slice this, employers will be footing the bill.
What's happened? On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Labor announced that its long-anticipated rule on overtime exemptions would go into effect on Jan. 1. There are no surprises here. The rule was proposed in final form back in March, and it had been known for a long time before that how it was likely to turn out. All that was missing was the effective date, and now that has been announced.
The rule sets the minimum salary required for an employee to be eligible to be considered for the three most familiar of the so-called "white-collar" exemptions from the federal overtime law. The exemptions permit employers not to pay overtime to employees who perform certain types of duties.
Very generally speaking, those duties must involve a significant amount of discretion and independent judgment. For example, an employee who primarily performs office work directly related to the management of the business and who exercises discretion and independent judgment on significant matters may qualify for the "administrative exemption."
There's one more thing: The employee must be paid an annual salary of at least $23,660. That is, until Jan. 1. When the new rule kicks in, that $23,660 (or $455 per week) will jump to $35,568 (or $684), a 50% increase. This also applies to the professional and executive exemptions.
Employers who have been paying attention have already looked at their pay schedules and have figured out a couple of things. First, do they have any exempt employees who are making less than $684 a week and how close are they to that new minimum salary? Second, are those employees working more than 40 hours a week and, if so, how much?
The point is to figure out whether it would cost more to give an employee a raise in salary to get her over the minimum and keep the exemption or to give up on the exemption and just pay her overtime when she works it.
If you know the numbers, it's a pretty easy calculation. The problem is many employers — or even the employees themselves — don't have any idea how many hours they work. They haven't been paid overtime, so nobody has tracked their time. Managers in this situation are going to have to make their best estimate based on what supervisors can tell them, what the employees say, and on their own observations. Maybe they can do a study between now and Jan. 1, but it might be affected by the knowledge of the coming change and will only measure workloads during this season, which might not be typical. It may be the best they can do and it's better than guessing.
When doing these calculations, employers should remember to take into account the impact of raises or overtime on benefits, some of which can be based on the amount of pay.
Also, there's going to be some education required. Neither these employees nor their supervisors — nor the payroll department, for that matter — are used to tracking their time or trying to minimize overtime. They've just been working until the job is done and maybe coming in a little late the next day to make up for it. That's not going to cut it when they're hourly, overtime-earning employees.
And those employers who haven't been paying attention? Well, out of the goodness of the Department of Labor's heart, they have just over three months to get all of this figured out. The department estimates the rule change will make 1.3 million employees newly eligible for overtime, so get started.
There is a third group of employers, the ones who haven't been paying attention, aren't paying attention and still will not be paying attention on or after Jan. 1. They will neither raise the exempt employees' salaries nor begin to pay them overtime.
What they will do, eventually, is receive a letter from an attorney that says pay up or I'll sue. By the way, that payday will include double back pay and attorney fees.
The new rule does have a few other tweaks. It raises the minimum salary for the "highly compensated" exemption from $100,000 to $107,432. It also allows certain bonuses and commissions to be counted toward the minimum salary levels, where before they could not be counted.
If you're the employer who has a plan, congratulations. It's just about time to pull the trigger. If you're the employer who just woke up to the new rule, better late than never: time to get ready.
If you're the employer who has been and remains clueless—see you in court.
David C. Miller is a shareholder in the Miami office of Bryant Miller Olive. He is board-certified in labor and employment law by the Florida Bar and has represented management exclusively in South Florida for more than 20 years. He is the chair of the city, county and local government law section of the Florida Bar. His email address is [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
© 2024 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Commentary: James Madison, Meet Matt Gaetz
- 2The Narcissist’s Dilemma: Balancing Power and Inadequacy in Family Law
- 3Leopard Solutions Launches AI Navigator, a Gen AI Search, Data Extraction Tool
- 4Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 5Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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