Category: FLSA

  • Federal Judge Vacates Overtime Final Rule

    Federal Judge Vacates Overtime Final Rule

    by CUPA-HR | November 15, 2024

    On November 15, a federal judge in the Eastern District Court of Texas ruled to strike down the Biden administration’s Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime final rule. The ruling strikes down all components of the rule, meaning both the July and January salary thresholds are no longer in effect, and the triennial automatic updates will not take place. The decision applies to all covered employers and employees under the FLSA nationwide.

    The Eastern District Court of Texas held a hearing on the business groups’ lawsuits challenging the overtime regulations on November 8. During the hearing, the judge suggested that it would be problematic if DOL’s salary basis replaced the duties test established under the FLSA regulations. He also noted that the Biden administration’s regulations were projected to have a larger number of workers impacted by the salary threshold increase than the Trump administration’s 2019 rule. The judge did not rule from the bench, but his remarks showed skepticism about the Biden administration’s rule.

    Background

    As a reminder, the final rule implemented a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA overtime regulations. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year). The second increase was set to take effect on January 1, 2025, and it would have increased the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year). The final rule also adopted automatic updates to the minimum salary threshold that would occur every three years.

    Soon after the final rule was published, several lawsuits were filed challenging the final rule. The suit claimed that the salary threshold that was supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2025, was so high it would result in more than 4 million individuals being denied exempt status, even though these individuals could be reasonably classified as exempt based on their duties, and in doing so, the rule violated both the statutory language of the FLSA and prior court decisions. The suits also challenged the automatic updates. The Eastern District Court of Texas granted a preliminary injunction for public employers in Texas prior to the July 1 effective date, stopping the rule from taking effect for those employers only. For private employers in Texas and all other employers in the country, the rule went into effect on July 1, and the January 1 effective date was still in play.

    Looking Ahead

    With the decision, the salary threshold set in the 2019 regulations ($35,568 per year or $683 per week) will be the salary threshold employers should adhere to. Whether President-elect Trump decides to increase the minimum salary threshold during his second term remains to be seen, but there will be no effort from his incoming administration to appeal the decision in favor of the Biden administration’s threshold. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of any updates related to the FLSA overtime regulations.



    Source link

  • DOL Issues Report on Coercive Contractual Provisions

    DOL Issues Report on Coercive Contractual Provisions

    by CUPA-HR | October 22, 2024

    On October 17, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of the Solicitor (SOL) issued a Special Enforcement Report on “coercive contractual provisions.” The report lists several provisions they have seen included in employment contracts that the department believes “may discourage workers from exercising their rights under worker protection laws.” The report demonstrates recent actions taken by SOL to combat such provisions, but it does not include new enforcement actions against employers that use these provisions.

    In the report, SOL claims the provisions discussed are coercive, violate the law and have significant impacts on the most vulnerable workers. The report details seven types of contractual provisions they find especially concerning:

    1. Contractual provisions requiring workers to waive statutory protections, including those requiring workers to waive their rights to bring claims and recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
    2. Contractual provisions that purport to require employees to agree that they are independent contractors
    3. Indemnification-type provisions and related counterclaims purporting to shift liability for legal violations to workers or other entities
    4. “Loser pays” provisions attempting to require employees to pay the employer’s attorney’s fees and costs if the employees do not prevail in litigation or arbitration
    5. “Stay or pay” provisions, including some training repayment assistance provisions, that purport to require workers to pay damages to their employer for leaving a contract early
    6. Confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions
    7. Company policies that purport to require workers to report safety concerns to their employer before contacting any government agencies

    The report emphasizes that the Department of Labor is “not bound by private contracts or arbitration agreements between workers and employers” and thus “has a unique role to play in fighting the use of these ‘fine print’ or ‘coercive’ contractual provisions.” It provides examples of cases where the courts have found such agreements unenforceable or where DOL has pursued an injunction in federal court seeking an order blocking one or more contract provisions.

    Importantly, the report is largely a restatement of current law and, for the most part, does not outline new enforcement actions against employers for using these provisions. Instead, the report outlines the work SOL has done recently to fight against the coercive contractual provisions, including cases and amicus briefs filed against employers using such business practices.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for additional resources from the Department of Labor that may impact contractual labor provisions.



    Source link