Skip to content

Tag: Overtime

Overtime Exemptions and Managing Overtime

Picture of a piggy bank to represent the overtime exemption and the increase in the salary threshold.
Photo by Fabian Blank on Unsplash

Wage and hour issues can cause a variety of headaches for companies. In 2017, there were 8,261 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) lawsuits filed against companies, which is 417 percent more than in 1997. The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor has recovered $2.8 billion from companies since 1984 with 70% of the money coming from FLSA violations that collectively affected 3 million workers. Failing to properly pay overtime accounts for a large portion of these fines.

A side note here for all of you looking forward to a new year- “New year, new you” is now “New Year, New overtime salary threshold”. So let’s prepare together to ensure you aren’t one of the people who are ill prepared when it comes to overtime pay.

The New Overtime Rules

Many companies believe that one only needs to pay a salary for an employee to be exempt from overtime. This is 100% false! And yet it is extremely common for both employers and employees to believe.

As a reminder, the new overtime rules become effective on January 1, 2020. Currently  the minimum salary that an employer must pay for an individual to be exempt from overtime is $455 per week (which equals $23,660 annually). The new overtime salary threshold will be $684 per week (which equals $35,568 per year). The new rule also raises the threshold for the highly compensated category from the current threshold of $100,000 to $107,432 per year. The new rule will also permit employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and commissions that are paid on at least an annual basis within this count towards meeting the overtime salary threshold (but only up to 10%) of the salary level.

Employers that are not paying at least $684 per week as a salary for any currently salaried exempt employees need to convert the employees to hourly employees or ensure that these employees do not work more than 40 hours in a week (which is when overtime begins under the FLSA). 

Duties Tests

As I said earlier, improper classification of employees as “exempt from overtime” can result in big fines, and with the common (false) belief that someone only has to be salaried to be exempt, this happens quite frequently. To prevent those fines, employers must pay attention to the overtime exemptions. Here is a quick overview:

Executive

To qualify for the executive employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met as noted by the Department of Labor:

• The employee must be compensated on a salary basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $684* per week;

• The employee’s primary duty must be managing the enterprise, or managing a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise;

• The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent; and

• The employee must have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees must be given particular weight.

“Primary duty” means the principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs. Determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character of the employee’s job as a whole.

Common job examples of the exemption are managers, CEO’s, supervisors, and business managers. 

Professional

To qualify for the learned professional employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met as explained by the DOL:

• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $684* per week;

• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;

• The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and [t]he advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.

Administrative

To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, the DOL requires that all of the following tests must be met:

• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $684* per week;

• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and

• The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

HR Generalist, Internal Auditor, Budget Analysts, and Buyers are the typical positions that qualify for this exemption.

Computer Employee

To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met as explained by the DOL:

• The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $684* per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour;

• The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the duties described below;

• The employee’s primary duty must consist of:

1. The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; and

2. The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;

3. The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or

4. A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.

Outside Sales

To qualify for the outside sales employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met as noted by the DOL:

• The employee’s primary duty must be making sales (as defined in the FLSA), or obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer; and

• The employee must be customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business. The salary requirements of the regulation do not apply to the outside sales exemption.

The most important thing to pay attention to regarding the outside sales exemption is that the person must be truly located outside of the office.

Highly Compensated Employees

The regulations contain a special rule for “highly compensated” employees who are paid a total annual compensation of $107,432 or more. The Department of Labor explains what a worker must be do to be a highly compensated employee:

A highly compensated employee is deemed exempt under Section 13(a)(1) if:

1. The employee earns total annual compensation of $107,432 or more, which includes at least $684* per week paid on a salary or fee basis;

2. The employee’s primary duty includes performing office or non-manual work; and

3. The employee customarily and regularly performs at least one of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee.

Misclassification and Common Overtime Mistakes

Improperly classifying an employee as exempt from overtime can result in hefty penalties for a company and is not something that any company should do willingly. 

There are a few common ways that many companies mess up the overtime exemptions:

  • The employee is actually paid an hourly wage rather than being paid a salary. Rule 1 is that these employees must be paid a salary for them to be exempt from overtime unless they are a computer professional.
  • The employee failed to perform the required duties that are necessary to meet the qualification even though they had the right title. For example, the employee was labeled a manager, but really was just a glorified cashier.
  • The company failed to consider the requirements at the state level, which may have a different salary threshold. Alaska, California California, and New York have salary thresholds that are higher than the new threshold that will go into effect in January. Pennsylvania’s salary threshold to be exempt from overtime will be above the federal threshold beginning in 2021. Washington state also has a proposed rule that would increase the overtime threshold for workers in the state.

With the new regulations coming it may be time to review your classifications to ensure that they are properly done.

Pay Deductions for a Salary Exempt Employee

You can make deductions from the pay of a salaried exempt employee under certain circumstances as noted by the Department of Labor:

Deductions from pay are permissible when an exempt employee:

is absent from work for one or more full days for personal reasons other than sickness or disability;

for absences of one or more full days due to sickness or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing compensation for salary lost due to illness;

to offset amounts employees receive as jury or witness fees, or for military pay;

for penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules of major significance;

or for unpaid disciplinary suspensions of one or more full days imposed in good faith for workplace conduct rule infractions.

Also, an employer is not required to pay the full salary in the initial or terminal week of employment [(if the employee did not work a full week)], or for weeks in which an exempt employee takes unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Practical Steps to Reduce and Manage Overtime

Managing overtime can be one of the trickiest tasks for HR to do. Fortunately, there are some ways that employers can manage overtime.

  1. Track hours- count the hours that people work through software or a timekeeping device. If a person is working less than 40 hours a week, then you can pay them a salary and not worry about whether or not they are exempt from overtime.
  2. Have policies- Make sure that you have a policy that requires employees to report off-the-clock work. Inform employees of the policy and make them sign an acknowledgement. You still must pay employees if they perform unauthorized work off-the-clock, but you can discipline them for not getting approval for the time first or working without authorization.
  3. Pay attention to the job descriptions: I wrote about this last week. You need to make sure that the job duties of the employee match the requirements of the overtime exemptions.
  4. Train supervisors to be aware of these issues. Make sure that supervisors know what jobs and duties people are supposed to have and ensure that they assign tasks to exempt employees that are within their job duties and the above overtime exemptions. They should also be aware if any employees are nonexempt so that they can monitor their hours to reduce the amount of overtime.

Conclusion

The new regulations are sure to bring a number of changes to many companies. Companies may need to redistribute work and convert salaried employees to hourly employees in an effort to avoid paying overtime to employees that were formerly exempt from overtime. The right time to act is now before the regulations go into effect to ensure timely compliance.

The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

2019 Labor and Employment Law Predictions

Image of the words "Happy New Year", which relates to the title of the post: 2019 Labor and Employment Law Predictions

Photo by Crazy nana on Unsplash

2018 was a whirlwind year for labor and employment. There were 3 major Supreme Court decisions. One decision concerned overtime exemptions to the Fair Labor Standard Act where the court found that the exemptions should be interpreted broadly rather than narrowly. The Janus decision held that public sector employees could not be forced to pay an agency fee (public sector employees do not need to pay anything to a union that represents them). Finally, the Court found in the Epic Systems case that employers can require employees to settle employment disputes through arbitration agreements without violating the National Labor Relations Act.

While not as many changes will occur this year in labor and employment, there are still a number of exciting changes that could occur. Here are 10 labor and employment law predictions that I believe will happen next year.

Sexual Harassment Lawsuits Will Increase

The #Metoo movement is not going away in 2018. The preliminary data from the EEOC showed that charges alleging sexual harassment increased by more than 12% from 2017 into 2018. Unfortunately, this is an issue that is not going away. My prediction is that there will be more of these charges and lawsuits going into this year.

There will also be several states that will enact new laws to combat sexual harassment this year. California already has new requirements that just went into effect.   

Starting in 2019, employers with five or more employees must provide two hours of training to supervisors and one hour to all other employees within six months of their hire (or promotion to supervisor) and every two years thereafter. Temporary and seasonal employees must be trained within their first 30 days or 100 hours, whichever comes first.

No company wants to be thought of as the company that allowed sexual harassment. Just look at what happened to Mike Isabella, a former Top Chef star, and his restaurants:  

But in a Chapter 7 filing on Tuesday, which seeks to operate six restaurants through Dec. 27 before closing them permanently, Isabella argues that the local and national media relentlessly threw shade on his business operations even after he agreed to a confidential settlement in May with former Isabella Eatery manager, Chloe Caras, who sued for “extraordinary sexual harassment.” Isabella, documents note, apologized publicly to a local TV reporter and implemented new “zero tolerance” sexual harassment policies at all of his restaurants. He was ready to “restore confidence in Mike Isabella and his restaurants.”

Isabella lost his restaurants after he was accused of sexual harassment. Now, the accusations against him were very serious and he was the owner of the restaurant and was the one accused of sexual harassment. However, this can happen to any business and can be caused by employees at any level of the business. The issue of sexual harassment in the workplace is not going away. There will be more lawsuits, and charges regarding sexual harassment in 2019 than there were in 2018.

The Supreme Court Will Take a Case to Decide Whether Sexual Orientation is Protected under Title VII

The Supreme Court is considering taking a case to determine whether Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The issue hinges on whether “Because of … sex” includes sexual orientation or is limited to a person’s sex.

Currently there is a split among the Circuit Courts. The 2nd and 7th Circuit have found that Title VII prohibits sexual orientation-based discrimination and the 11th Circuit has found that sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII.  

The Supreme Court will grant the writ of certiorari and they will review the case. If the Supreme Court decides to review the issue, then it will be one of the most important cases that the Court considers next term.

The Department of Labor Will Increase the Salary Threshold for the Overtime Rule

The Department of Labor is still undergoing rulemaking to raise the salary threshold that is required to meet the overtime exemption, which allows companies to pay workers a salary and not have to pay employees overtime regardless of the number of hours that they work in a week. Currently, an employee must be paid at least $455 per week (which equals $23,660 annually) to meet the salary threshold. In 2016, the Obama administration raised the salary threshold to $913 a week (or $47,476 a year). A federal district judge eventually blocked that rule and questioned the DOL’s ability to set any salary requirement to be exempt from overtime.

The DOL will attempt to raise the threshold to around $33,000 this year probably in March. The new salary threshold will be challenged again to determine whether the DOL even has the authority to set a salary threshold.

Paid Family Leave is Coming

As I said in a prior post, paid family leave is coming. This is a question of when and not if. I believe that it will be implemented either this year or next year. Here is what I said in my earlier post.

Various politicians have expressed their support for paid family leave. Ivanka Trump and The White House have discussed their support for family leave. Marco Rubio introduced a plan to allow new parents to delay taking their Social Security benefits in exchange for two months of paid parental benefits. The Democratic Party Platform also called for paid family leave.

One poll showed that 54% of Americans think the government should require all employers to provide 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. Only 29% of the respondents disagreed and 17% were undecided. With as much support as there is for paid family leave, it seems certain that Congress and the President will eventually enact a paid family leave law.

The National Labor Relations Board Will Issue a Joint Employer Standard

In September, the NLRB had issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to change the joint employer standard. The joint employer standard is important to determine whether companies are liable for violations of the law that are committed by staffing companies or franchises. For example, McDonalds has been combating a charge that it is a joint employer with its franchisees and is responsible for these small business owners firing employees that wanted higher wages.

Here is the release from the NLRB with the proposed rule:

Under the proposed rule, an employer may be found to be a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.

Unfortunately for the NLRB, the DC Circuit Court recently found that:

the question of whether there is a joint employment relationship under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) must be answered by applying the common law test for whether there exists an “agency” relationship.  The Board has no special expertise relevant to defining the common law of agency. Therefore, according to the Court of Appeals, the Board is awarded no deference in this area. In other words, the Board does not have the right to define or redefine joint employment in a way that would be inconsistent with the common law meaning of “agency.”’

My prediction is that the NLRB moves forward with its rulemaking and ignores the decision of the DC Circuit. This will have a big impact on employers that use staffing companies because they will not (generally) be liable for violations that the staffing company commits against its employees unless the company exercises direct control over the employees rather than merely having the ability to direct the staffing company employees.

To clarify, it is basically the difference between a supervisor of a hotel telling the landscaping crew (that is employed by a staffing company) how to perform their jobs and exactly what needs to be done (direct control) versus the staffing company supervising, disciplining, and directing the employees with the supervisor or owner of the hotel merely having the authority to direct these landscaping employees (indirect control).

I know it is a bit convoluted, but it is incredibly important. Depending on how this decision turns out it could have a big impact on any company that franchises businesses. Yes, that means that it will impact every McDonalds and Chick-Fil-A owner.

Independent Contractor Issues Will Arise in Many States

Independent contractors are everywhere and the law concerning them is far from settled. My prediction is that more states will seek to limit the abilities of companies to use independent contractors especially when these contractors form a part of the company’s core business (think UBER drivers).

The California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision last year and the effects are still being felt. Below is the new test (called the ABC test) that the court implemented. For a worker to be an independent contractor the company must show:

1) that the company does not direct the worker in the performance of her job, 2) that the worker performs work outside the scope of the company’s typical business (such as a freelance artist who designs fliers for a moving company), and 3) that the worker has made the affirmative decision to go into business for herself, perhaps by incorporating or starting an LLC.

New Jersey and Massachusetts also use the ABC test to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor. Many of the companies that use independent contractors have a bad reputation and it is likely that more state supreme courts and possibly legislatures will adopt the ABC test. Regardless, it will get harder (at the state level) for companies to employ independent contractors. 

More States will Protect Medical Marijuana Users from Discrimination

More states will change their stance on medical marijuana and whether employees that use it are protected from discrimination. Currently Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island protect employee use of medical marijuana and prohibit employers from firing those employees for off duty medical marijuana use. In December, a Delaware judge allowed a case involving a medical marijuana user that was fired after failing a drug test to move forward.

We may not get a decision on this case this year, but it is likely that Delaware will join Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in protecting off duty medical marijuana use, and more states will follow suit.

Unfortunately for employers, there is not a good test that can measure impairment for marijuana, which is why more states protecting off-duty marijuana use will cause problems for employers. Until there is a test that can measure impairment, increased training will be critical so that supervisors can observe employees that appear to be impaired.

You can see my earlier post regarding addressing marijuana in the workplace here.

Notices of Inspection (I-9 Audits) Will Increase

There will be more Notices of Inspection (I-9 Audits) against businesses this year. As I said in a prior post about Notices of Inspection:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has increased the number of I-9 audits that it has conducted to around four times as many I-9 inspections (Notices of Inspection) in the first seven months of 2018 as it did in the prior fiscal year. ICE conducted 5,278 Notices of Inspection since January 2018. 

Immigration enforcement is a priority for the Trump Administration.

The Supreme Court Will Issue a Decision About DACA. A Deal Will be Reached to Allow DACA Recipients to Remain in the US.

Either the Supreme Court will issue a decision about DACA or there will be new legislation that will solve the DACA issue. DACA holders will achieve some form of permanent or semi-permanent status that will allow them to remain in the US.

As I said in a prior post about DACA:

DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) protects certain people that were brought to the US as children from deportation and allows them to get a job or attend school. They cannot obtain permanent residency through the program but may obtain work authorization and continue to reside in the country. There are currently nearly 700,000 people that are in the DACA program. The program was slated to end before a judge ruled that the government must reinstate the program and accept applications again in August. Earlier today [(November 8)] the Ninth Circuit ruled  that the Trump Administration cannot end the DACA program immediately. They found that California and the others challenging the Trump administration’s decision to end the program would succeed in their case against the administration.

The Trump Administration has already appealed the decision of the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court. This is an issue that will likely be decided within the next year or so through a bipartisan deal.

The Spouses of H-1B Visa Holders Will Lose their Work Authorization While They Wait for a Green Card

H-1B spouses will lose their lawsuit to retain their work authorization while waiting for their green card.

There is currently a lawsuit about whether spouses on H-4 visas will be allowed to obtain work authorization while they wait for their green cards after their I-140 is approved. This is especially important to immigrants from India and China as they may wait years (sometimes even more than a decade) until they are able to get a green card after their spouse’s immigrant petition has been approved. Unfortunately, I believe that they will eventually lose their lawsuit. Administrative agencies have a lot of authority to change their positions on regulations.

Conclusion

I do not believe that it will be a year with as many changes in labor and employment law (at the federal level) as last year because Congress is split. However, many states will undoubtedly try to fill in the gap. The Supreme Court could also cause major changes in labor and employment law by reviewing whether sexual orientation is protected under Title VII.

These are my 2019 labor and employment law predictions. I’ll write a post at the end of the year to let you all know whether my labor and employment law predictions came true.

Happy New Year Everyone!

The information provided in this blog is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, then you should speak with a lawyer about your specific issues. Every legal issue is unique. A lawyer can help you with your situation. Reading the blog, contacting me through the site, emailing me or commenting on a post does not create an attorney-client relationship between any reader and me.

The information provided is my own and does not reflect the opinion of my firm or anyone else.

Brett Holubeck (of Houston, Texas) is the attorney responsible for this site.