Tag: department of labor

DOL Announces Final Rule on Salary Threshold for Exempt White-Collar Employees

Today, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its final rule on the minimum salary that white-collar employees must be paid to qualify as exempt from the overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The new rule raises the current salary level that such employees must receive in order to qualify as “exempt” from $23,660 annually, to $47,476 annually. The new rule takes effect December 1, 2016.

Under current DOL regulations, most white collar employees – executives (supervisors), administrative employees, and professionals – are exempt from the FLSA overtime rules and need not be paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek if they satisfy two conditions. First, they must perform “exempt” duties as defined by the DOL regulations. Second, they must be paid a guaranteed salary of at least $455 per week, or about $23,660 annually.

The new rule, first proposed in a slightly different form back in 2015, raises the salary level significantly to $913 per week, or about $47,476 annually. This new salary level is set at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers in the lowest income Census region (currently the South). This number is less than the $970 per week, or about $50,440 annually, that the DOL had originally proposed. In addition, the DOL will now permit up to 10 percent of the salary level to come from non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions).

This new threshold of $913 per week/$47,476 annually will be tied to the 40th percentile for full-time salaried workers in the lowest income Census region going forward, and will be updated every three years. It is currently expected to rise to more than $51,000 annually when the first update takes effect on January 1, 2020.

In addition, under the new rule the salary level for employees who qualify for the “highly compensated employee” exemption will rise from $100,000 per year to $134,004 per year. This level is the annual equivalent of the 90th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally.

One change contemplated by the DOL when the agency first proposed this new rule back in 2015 will not take effect: changes to the “duties” test. The DOL has announced that the final rule will leave the existing duties tests for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions in place.

The DOL estimates that 4.2 million additional workers will become eligible for overtime as a result of this rule change, including approximately 101,000 workers in the State of Michigan. This is estimated to raise total wages for American workers by approximately $12 billion over the next 10 years.

Many employers will be impacted by this new rule, as many employers have at least one “exempt” employee who is paid less than $47,476 annually. Thus, employers should scrutinize their workforces carefully to determine if changes in exempt status are necessary. Options include:

  • increase the salary of an employee who meets the duties test to at least $47,476 annually to retain his or her exempt status;

  • convert the employee to non-exempt status and pay an overtime premium of one-and-one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for any overtime hours worked;

  • convert the employee to non-exempt status and reduce or eliminate overtime hours;

  • convert the employee to non-exempt status and reduce the amount of pay allocated to base salary (provided that the employee still earns at least the applicable hourly minimum wage) and add pay to account for overtime for hours worked over 40 in the workweek, to hold total weekly pay constant; or

  • use some combination of these responses.

Given the significance of these changes, and the expected impact on the American workforce, employers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to discuss their options and strategies for implementing changes, if necessary.

U.S. Department of Labor Issues Final Rule Greatly Expanding Scope of Reportable “Persuader” Activities

DOLOn March 23, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule, first proposed in June 2011, requiring employers and their labor relations consultants, including law firms, to report to DOL any agreements pursuant to which the consultant undertakes activities with “an object directly or indirectly to persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.” Reports are to be filed electronically and are subject to immediate public access. Failure to report is subject to criminal sanctions.

The new rule reverses a decades-old DOL interpretation of the “advice” exception to reporting requirements. Previously, if the agreement between the employer and consultant involved nothing more than the consultant providing the employer with materials or advice that the employer had the right to accept or reject, so long as the consultant had no direct contact with employees, no report was required.

The new rule requires an employer to report on Form LM-10 and consultants to report on Form LM-20 information relating to the scope of the agreement and fees paid for the provision of both direct and indirect persuader materials or activities.

The new rule narrows the “advice” exception to oral or written recommendations from the consultant regarding a decision or course of conduct by the employer including, for example, counseling a business about its plans to undertake a particular course of action, legal vulnerabilities and how they may be minimized, identification of unsettled areas of the law and representation of the employer in disputes or negotiations that may arise.

The greatly expanded definition of reportable persuader activities, provided the object is to directly or indirectly persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively, includes, among many other activities:

  • Planning, directing or coordinating activities undertaken by supervisors or other employer representatives with employees.

  • Providing persuader materials or communications to the employer in oral, electronic or written form for dissemination or distribution to employees, including drafting and revising of such materials. (The sale, rental or other use of “off the shelf” persuader materials not created for the particular employer is excluded, unless the consultant assists the employer in selecting materials).

  • Conducting a seminar for supervisors or other employer representatives if the seminar includes development of anti-union tactics and strategies.

  • Developing or implementing personnel policies or actions which have a direct or indirect object of persuading employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain collectively.

The rule is applicable to agreements and payments made on or after July 1, 2016. Legal challenges and an attempt to block enforcement of the new persuader rules are a certainty—the outcome is not.

Article By Thomas E. Obenberger of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

DOL’s Upcoming Proposed Revisions to the FLSA’s White Collar Exemption Regulations

This month the Department of Labor is expected to propose, for the first time since 2004, revised regulations concerning the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. These revisions were prompted by President Obama’s March 13, 2014 memorandum to the Secretary of Labor, which stated that the exemptions “have not kept up with our modern economy” and which “direct[ed] [the DOL] to propose revisions to modernize and streamline the existing overtime regulations.” After the memorandum was issued, the agency began writing proposed regulations and announced on May 5, 2015, that it had completed drafting them and had submitted them (as required by Executive Order 12866) to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

Procedurally, the “proposed rules” will be published in the Federal Register (an action known as a “Notice of Public Rulemaking” or “NPRM”) for public comment following the OMB’s review, and the DOL has stated that it expects to take this step this month. After the public comment period closes, the DOL will consider the public comments in drafting “final rules;” submit them for a final review by the OMB; and then publish them in the Federal Register with an effective date on which they become law. Although implementation of the final rules may not occur until well into 2016, traditionally the final rules do not differ substantially from the proposed rules. Accordingly, employers should get a sense this month of what the future regulatory landscape will look like.

So what can we expect from these revisions? As an initial matter, it’s almost certain that the DOL will raise the $455 minimum salary requirement, which hasn’t changed since 2004. With regard to the other revisions, however, the DOL’s drafting process has been opaque, and official pronouncements have been largely limited to the Presidential Memorandum and the DOL’s description of the regulatory action on its Spring 2015 agenda, neither of which provide any specific detail. Nonetheless, unofficial pronouncements (including the Secretary of Labor’s remarks before the International Association of Firefighters on March 18, 2014) have repeatedly stressed the DOL’s position that the current regulations result in too many employees falling under the exemptions, particularly retail managers who spend a large portion of their time performing non-exempt duties. Accordingly, there is speculation that the DOL may eliminate the “concurrent duties” provision of 29 CFR 541.106, which provides that simultaneously performing both exempt and nonexempt duties will not automatically disqualify an otherwise exempt employee from the executive exemption. There is also speculation that the regulations may impose a set percentage cap on the amount of time an exempt employee may spend on non-exempt duties, similar to exemption provisions under some state laws (such as California and Connecticut) and to some provisions of the pre-2004 FLSA regulations.

In any event, one thing is certain – some employees who are properly classified as exempt under the current regulations will no longer be exempt under the new rules. Employers will shortly have a preview of just how drastic these changes will be, and should begin evaluating their compliance with the regulations well in advance of the implementation of the final rules.

ARTICLE BY Dennis M. Mulgrew, Jr. of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
©2015 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

Supreme Court: DOL Can Flip-flop on its Interpretation of Its Own Regulations

Godfrey & Kahn S.C. Law firm

In 2010, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued an “Administrator’s Interpretation” stating that DOL would no longer consider employees who perform duties typical of mortgage loan officers to be exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements.  This particular ruling revolved around the FLSA’s exemption for administrative employees.

Supreme court DOL FLSA

The DOL’s 2010 stance represented a change of course, as DOL had previously issued an “Opinion Letter” in 2006 stating that mortgage loan officers were generally exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements under the administrative exemption.  Litigation ensued following the 2010 Administrator’s Interpretation.  The focus of that litigation was a rather technical issue:  Should DOL have followed the formal rulemaking process before it could flip-flop on its interpretation of its own regulations?  You can read more about the details of the litigation here.

On Monday, March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that DOL was not required to follow the formal rulemaking process whenever it took a position that was contrary to previous guidance issued by DOL.

Why does this ruling matter to employers of mortgage loan officers?  Those businesses should classify those employees as non-exempt and evaluate their compensation structures immediately to comply with DOL’s interpretation of the administrative exemption.  Otherwise, these employers run the risk of DOL enforcement actions and private litigation.  Of course, these employers can disregard the DOL’s interpretation and rely on individual merits of their classifications, but they would do so at their peril.

Why does this ruling matter to employers generally?  Based on the Court’s ruling, DOL can arguably change its tune about any interpretation of its own interpretive regulations without any warning to employers.  An emboldened DOL could revisit regulatory interpretations that currently favor employers and flip those interpretations on their head, without warning.  More importantly, the Court’s ruling was not limited to the DOL, which means that other federal administrative agencies (e.g., OSHA) could follow suit, leaving employers with little recourse to challenge such changes of heart.

ARTICLE BY

M. Scott LeBlanc
Rufino Gaytán
OF
Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Vacation Policy Pitfalls for Illinois Employers

FINAL SW logo wLLP2

The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq., governs the payment of wages—including vacation pay—in Illinois.  While most employers understand that they must pay their workers on a regular basis for the wages the employees have earned, many do not consider how vacation policies may create a heightened risk of a wage class action lawsuit.

Simply put, employers must pay the wages earned by an employee at least semi-monthly, or no more than 13 days after they are first earned.  Departing employees must be paid all earned wages by the next regular pay period.  The Act defines wages to include vacation pay.  This is where things can get tricky.  An employer is not obliged to provide any vacation time to its employees.  However, once it chooses to provide vacation, the vacation time becomes earned wages that must be paid under the Act to the employee, even if the employee terminates their employment.

Employees receive vacation time in one of two ways.  First, an employer can award vacation time without requiring employees to first work some period of time.  Such a policy is called an “inducement for future service” policy and immediately vests.  Hence, employees may take vacation time under an “inducement for future service” policy without meeting any length of service criteria (and with no obligation to repay the vacation time should the employment end).  Such “inducement for future service” policies are unusual.

The other alternative is where the vacation is earned based on service.  For example, the employer can award two weeks of vacation for each year of employment.  This is considered a “length-of-service” policy and the law requires that employees earn “length-of-service” vacation time on a pro rata basis, even where the employer’s policy says they do not.  In other words, the vacation time vests as the employee works.  Thus, an employee who would earn two weeks of vacation after completing a year of employment is entitled to be paid for one week of vacation wages if he/she leaves the employer six months into the year, regardless of what the employer’s policy says.  Most employers have “length-of-service” policies.

An employer with a “length-of-service” policy must pay a departing employee the vacation wages they earned on a pro rata basis.  This is where a vacation policy can become dangerous.  If the employer has a policy that an employee only gets their vacation if they are employed in the following year, the employer is at risk with regard to every employee who left or, in the future leaves, its employment without getting paid vacation pay on a pro rata basis.  Such policy flaws lend themselves to class action lawsuits because the employer’s liability to the class will usually turn on a single question, such as whether the vacation policy is legal or not.

A class action lawsuit can be filed by one departing employee on behalf of all employees who left the employment without getting vacation pay.  A class action lawsuit is dangerous because it aggregates all employees’ claims into a single lawsuit brought by just the class representative.  In 2010, the Illinois legislature amended the statute of limitations under the Act to allow a class representative to file on behalf of a class that goes back in time up to ten years.  Because of the large number of unnamed, but represented, employees that can be in a class, the situation can create potentially disastrous financial exposure for an employer.  And, if the representative employee prevails, she is entitled to recover from the employer her attorneys’ fees, which are usually substantial.  As if this were not enough, the 2010 amendment also permits employees to collect damages of two percent per month—of 24 percent per annum—on any unpaid wages.  Willful refusals to pay wages can also be criminal.

Even if the class action lawsuit settles for a set amount of money, the employer usually must also pay the class representative’s attorneys’ fees.  Under the 2010 amendment, a prevailing employee is entitled to recover her attorneys’ fees, even she did not file her case as a class action.

Recognizing the risk, some employers have tried to limit their exposure by requiring that employees sign an agreement that they will make any claims within a short period of time—for example, six months.  Importantly, the plaintiffs’ bar and the Illinois Department of Labor take the position that the Act prevents an employee from agreeing to limit any of the rights bestowed on the employee by the Act.  Thus, an employee’s written agreement that they will bring any claims for unpaid wages within six months is unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

Employers should be careful to ensure that their policies comply with each state law in which they have employees, including the 2010 amendments to the Act.  If an employer is unfortunately named in a class action lawsuit, they should promptly seek legal advice from a law firm with experience in defending against class action lawsuits.

Copyright 2014 Schopf & Weiss LLP
ARTICLE BY

Insurance Coverage Practice Group
OF
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, P.C.

Employers’ Immigration Law Update – September 2014

Jackson Lewis Law firm

ICE Levies $2M Fine against Hotel for I-9 Related Violations

A Salt Lake City-based hotel will have to pay nearly $2 million for hiring unauthorized workers, including illegal aliens. The hotel will avoid criminal prosecution in exchange for its full cooperation with a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigation and for taking action to correct its hiring practices. According to the non-prosecution agreement, several lower-level employees and mid-level managers conspired to rehire unauthorized workers amidst an administrative audit of I-9 employee verification forms that began in September 2010. The hotel was notified that 133 employees were not authorized to work in the United States; however, the conspirators created three temporary employment agencies, essentially shell companies, to rehire 43 of the unauthorized, and most of the workers returned under different names using fraudulent identity documents.

$300K for H-2B Violations

According to a Department of Labor announcement, the agency has charged a landscaping company with violating federal law by failing to hire U.S. workers, and for underpaying temporary foreign workers. The company will pay $280,000 in back wages to 80 workers and nine job applicants and $20,000 in civil money penalties.

Immigration Reform Update

With comprehensive immigration reform legislation no longer a realistic possibility for the foreseeable future, advocates for reform have shifted their focus to executive actions the President may take unilaterally to implement changes in immigration policy.

The President reportedly is considering broad use of executive action, granting relief potentially to up to 6 million undocumented individuals, similar to what has been provided under the administration’s Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals program (DACA).

Building off of DACA, the President has directed the Department of Homeland Security to review the administration’s immigration enforcement policies and recommend additional changes, possibly expanding the deferred action and work authorization to family members of U.S. citizens and lawful U.S. residents. The administration reportedly also is looking at possible changes to current law and regulation that could benefit employers.

Any unilateral action by the administration likely will be controversial.

Owner Liable for H-1B, J-1 Costs

The owner of several medical clinics is personally liable for back wages and the costs of physicians’ H-1B visas and J-1 waivers, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled. Kutty v. DOL, No. 11-6120 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2014). The Court held Dr. Mohan Kutty and his medical clinics violated H-1B provisions by having physicians cover the costs of their own H-1B visa petitions and related J-1 visa waivers.

Settlement Between U.S. Department of Labor and Oregon Blueberry Growers Vacated

Varnum LLP

In 2012, the Department of Labor accused Oregon blueberry growers of employing “ghost workers” resulting in minimum wage violations. The DOL then issued what is known as a “hot goods order” to block shipment of their product to market until the violations were remedied.  This, of course, created an untenable situation for the blueberry producers as their products were highly perishable. With no real alternative, the blueberry growers signed consent agreements with the DOL, in which they agreed to substantial fines and waived their rights to contest the allegations.

The blueberry growers later challenged the consent judgment and in January a federal magistrate judge agreed with the growers finding that “the tactic of putting millions of dollars of perishable goods in lock up was unlawfully coercive.” That decision was upheld just last week by the United States district judge. Invaliding consent judgments, particularly those with the federal government, is extremely difficult and rarely happens. But in this case, the combination of over-the-top, coercive of tactics by the DOL, as well as the court’s view that there was little or no evidence of underlying labor violations to begin with, paved the way for the growers in this case.

Article By:

Aaron M. Phelps
Of:
Varnum LLP

School is Almost Out and Summer Interns are (Still) In

MintzLogo2010_Black

With the Memorial Day weekend approaching, many people are looking forward to hitting the beach, firing up the grill and polishing off their golf clubs, which are, for many Northeasterners, covered in cobwebs after this long winter. For employers, summer often means the arrival of (potentially unpaid) interns.

We have written before about the recent wave of high-profile wage and hour class actions lawsuits from interns. Last week, just in time for the arrival of the newest batch of summer interns, a New York federal judge conditionally certified an FLSA class of approximately 3,000 interns of Warner Music Group who were allegedly misclassified as exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements. The recent litigation has also prompted new legislation to protect interns, including a New York City law aimed at ensuring that unpaid interns will have the right to sue if they are harassed or discriminated against by an employer.

Still, many companies cannot resist the temptation of free or relatively cheap temporary labor, and, in a still-rebounding economy, job-seekers continue to look to internships to build their resumes and gain experience. So, what can a company do in order to ensure a smooth, issue-free summer with its interns?

  • The first and most obvious answer is to treat interns as temporary employees. Have interns track time like any other non-exempt employees. Pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for any hours worked over 40 per week (assuming they do not meet some exemption from the minimum wage and overtime laws). Comply with all state laws regarding working and meal breaks. This approach will alleviate the vast majority of legal issues with respect to employing summer interns.
  • Require interns to attend the same non-discrimination, non-harassment trainings as other employees. Draft job descriptions for interns and set appropriate expectations for the program. Have clear policies, including a policy regarding expected conduct at work-related social events, which interns are required to review and acknowledge in writing.
  • If you decide against paying interns, you should carefully review intern program to ensure that it is legally compliant with appropriate wage and hour laws. In order for an intern to be legally unpaid under federal law:
  1. The intern experience must be similar to training given in an educational environment;
  2. The internship must be for the benefit of the intern (meaning they gain tangible training, experience, etc.);
  3. Interns may not displace or supplant regular employees, or perform duties traditionally rendered by regular employees;
  4. The company must not get any immediate advantage from the intern’s activities;
  5. The intern must not be entitled to a job at the end of the internship; and
  6. The company and the intern should have a written agreement (or an understanding at the absolute minimum) that the intern is not entitled to receive remuneration for his/her work.

According to the Department of Labor, if any one of these criteria is not met the company must pay the intern for all time worked. Some states have their own laws regarding interns, so make sure you are in compliance with those laws as well.

If your summer intern program begins soon after Memorial Day, now is the time to review you policies. A little bit of preparation can ensure a sunny summer for all.

Article By:

Jillian M. Collins
Of:
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mind Regulations When It Is Time To Mine

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

The Department of Labor recently issued a reminder to employers involved in themining industry. As spring (slowly) approaches, surface mines will reopen. As miners head back to the job site and prepare equipment for the new season, potential for injury is high.

Of the 12,000 metal and nonmetal mines overseen by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”), almost half are operated on a seasonal basis, closing for winter when conditions make operations too difficult. According to MSHA information, injuries at seasonal mines climb sharply in the spring. MSHA is vested with the power to enforce compliance with mandatory safety and health standards as a means to eliminate fatal accidents; to reduce the frequency and severity of nonfatal accidents; to minimize health hazards; and to promote improved safety and health conditions in the Nation’s mines.

Miner operators and managers should review safety information available at http://www.msha.gov and take the time to educate employees on the numerous hazards associated with the job. Always keep in mind that employers are responsible for providing a safe workplace; employee injuries are not only detrimental to operations, but can be costly – both financially and reputation-wise.

Article by:
Brandon K. Johnson
 
Of:
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Keeping Current – Recent Changes in Employment Laws

vonBriesen

Is your FMLA policy up to date?

The federal Family Medical Leave Act regulations were revised in 2013, primarily to expand the circumstances under which employees can take military leaves. For example, leave is now available to care for covered veterans and for service members or veterans who aggravated an existing illness or injury while on active duty (as opposed to suffering a new injury while on duty). Qualifying exigency leave is now also available to care for a covered service member’s parent.

The Department of Labor is increasing the number of complaint-driven on-site audits it conducts under the FMLA. Auditors will come in with a checklist of updates they expect to see in an employer’s FMLA policy to comply with the 2008 and 2013 regulatory changes, as well as the DOL’s informal guidance. Having updated policies will show an auditor or investigator that you are up to speed on the latest changes in the law and may lend credibility to your FMLA practices.

If you are a federal contractor, are you preparing to comply with the new OFCCP regulations regarding veterans and individuals with disabilities?

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance (“OFCCP”) issued regulations in 2013 substantially increasing the obligations of federal contractors relating to veterans and individuals with disabilities. Many of these new requirements, including language to be included in all job postings and subcontracts, go into effect March 24, 2014. Additional requirements go into effect at the start of an employer’s next plan year after March 24, 2014, but may require substantial planning in advance. For example, federal contractors will now be required to conduct statistical analysis of the number of veterans and disabled individuals in their workforce, much like what was already required for race and gender. This requires inviting individuals to self-identify as a veteran or disabled. The regulations require this invitation be made to all applicants and again to those offered jobs. It also requires that an employer’s existing work force be invited to self-identify as disabled every five years. Tracking this information can be complicated, as it must be kept separate from general personnel files and treated as confidential. This is not only required by the regulations but is also essential to avoid increased risk of discrimination claims on the basis of disability.

Companies that provide products or services under contracts with the federal government should review their obligations to ensure they are complying with these new OFCCP regulations.

Was your employee terminated for misconduct or “substantial fault” on the job?

Wisconsin’s 2013 Budget Bill made changes to the statutes governing unemployment insurance, which took effect January 5, 2014. Even before these changes, employees would be ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they were terminated for misconduct. The definition of misconduct previously came from case law. The new statute defines misconduct and includes examples, which include:

  • Two or more absences (without notice or without valid reason) in 120 days, unless employer policy is more generous
  • Falsifying business records

The statute also adds a second basis under which employees may be disqualified for benefits, if they are terminated for “substantial fault” in their performance. This still does not disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits for minor infractions or inadvertent errors, but on its face it would disqualify an employee who was terminated for major failures. This basis is largely undefined and untested, so we will have to monitor the decisions of administrative law judges and the courts to determine how it will be defined in practice. The updated statutes also narrow the circumstances in which an employee can quit his/her job and still qualify for unemployment benefits.

These changes may mean that employers are more likely to prevail if they challenge a former employee’s unemployment compensation claims. This may be of particular benefit to non-profit employers who participate in the unemployment insurance system as reimbursing employers, and therefore pay dollar-for-dollar on each unemployment claim.

Article by:

Sarah J. Platt

Of:

von Briesen & Roper, S.C.