DOL Enacts a Final, Final Rule Regarding Overtime Exemptions
Pennsylvania has not issued a final rule regarding its proposed rulemaking that would dramatically increase salary requirements and revise the duties test for exempt employees.
October 18, 2019 at 12:17 PM
5 minute read
On Sept. 24, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a new final rule regarding eligibility for overtime pay (federal final rule). The rule requires employers to revisit their classifications of employees as exempt in order to ensure compliance. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has not issued a final rule regarding its proposed rulemaking that would dramatically increase salary requirements and revise the duties test for exempt employees.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its regulations require employers to pay minimum wage and overtime rates to employees unless they are exempt from those requirements. The statute and regulations create exemptions, and two tests to determine whether an employee is exempt or nonexempt: the duties test and the salary test. The U.S. Department of Labor announced rules in 2016 to dramatically increase the salary threshold in order for certain categories of employees to meet the standards for exemption from federal overtime requirements. The rules were met with litigation and a stay of their enforcement. The new federal final rules do not impose as dramatic a salary increase in order to meet the test.
Effective Jan. 1, 2020, the federal final rule raises the salary threshold from $455 a week to $684 a week, or $35,568 a year. In calculating salary, employers may now use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments, including commissions, to satisfy up to 10% of the salary requirement. The rule increases the salary level for "highly compensated employees" to $107,431. The DOL will revise salary levels in the future pursuant to the normal rulemaking procedure—increases are not automatic under the federal final rule. Of course, employers must continue to ensure that the employee's positions meet the substantive duties tests in order to meet the standards of exemption for the overtime requirements.
What then, will become of Pennsylvania's not-yet-final rules on the same topic? The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and its regulations operate like the FLSA to require employers to pay minimum wage and overtime rates to employees unless they are exempt. Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry proposed rules in late 2018 that change both the duties and salary tests (Pennsylvania proposed rule). As of this writing, Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry has not proposed any final rules on this topic. If the Pennsylvania proposed rule becomes final, it will create substantial difficulties for Pennsylvania employers.
With regard to the salary test, for each exemption, executive, administrative and professional, the Pennsylvania proposed rule seeks to impose a higher salary test that increases over time. Currently, the salary test under the PMWA and its regulations is very low, $155 a week. Under the Pennsylvania proposed rule, in the first year, the salary requirement is $610 a week, or $31,720 a year. A year later, the minimum will increase to $766 a week or $39, 832 a year. In the third year, the salary minimum will increase to $921 a week or $47,892 by the end of a three-year period. After three years, the salary minimum is calculated as "the 30th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time nonhourly workers in the Northeast census region in the second quarter of the prior year" as published by the U.S. Department of Labor.
This proposed rule was quite similar to the 2016 DOL regulation, but is dramatically different from the federal final rule just announced. Under the federal regulation, the salary requirement will only comply with the Pennsylvania salary requirement for the first year after enactment of the Pennsylvania rule. Thereafter, the salary requirement increases dramatically, and in a way that changes the manner in which an employer operates its business and classifies its employees. This difference will place Pennsylvania employers in a difficult bind with regard to compliance. The Pennsylvania proposed rule does allow up to 10% of the salary amount to include nondiscretionary bonuses, inventive or commissions. The current regulations do not contain this provision.
Further, the automatic increases in the following years require Pennsylvania employers to constantly re-evaluate their compliance, whether certain employees meet the exemption requirements, as well as their compensation structure in general. To undertake this type of evaluation on an annual basis is disruptive both to the business and the career paths of its exempt employees.
Pennsylvania employers who comply with the federal final rule are, for now, also complying with existing Pennsylvania law, except for some differences relating to computer and outside sales employees. Should Pennsylvania adopt the Pennsylvania proposed rule, the burdens of compliance will increase dramatically. Further, those rules are likely to be met with legal challenges that will create uncertainty as to effective dates regarding the rules. Employers would be wise to obtain a general understanding of steps for compliance should the Pennsylvania proposed rule become final.
Employers should take measures now to ensure compliance with the federal final rule by the end of the year. The first step is to identify any employees who are classified as exempt but are making less than $422 a week, and develop a plan to reclassify those employees, or revise their compensation. This is a good time to revisit the job duties of those employees to ensure that they meet the applicable standards for exemption in terms of their duties as well as their salary. This is also a good time to review overtime policies to ensure appropriate record-keeping, efficient use of overtime and compliance with applicable law.
Patricia Collins is a partner and employment law chair with Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, based in Doylestown. Her practice focuses primarily on employment, commercial litigation and health care law. To learn more about the firm or Collins, visit www.ammlaw.com.
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 AllFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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