On November 15, 2024, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas overturned the Department of Labor’s (DOL) final rule which increased the salary threshold for workers to be exempt from overtime requirements. In April of this year, the DOL announced a final rule that expanded the compensation threshold for exemption eligibility under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The compensation threshold was raised from $35,568 annually to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, with the threshold scheduled to be raised again on January 1, 2025 to $58,656. Additionally, the final rule called for the threshold to be automatically increased every three years. The District Court’s decision invalidates this rule, not only cancelling the January 1, 2025 increase and subsequent increases, but further undoes the July 1, 2024 increase. The threshold for overtime eligibility under the FLSA is set, once again, at $35,568 annually.
Under the FLSA, workers are entitled to overtime compensation for any hours worked over forty in a week unless they qualify for specific exemptions described in the law. As applicable here, the FLSA provides exemptions for workers who are bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees. The test for whether a worker qualifies for these exceptions looks at the salary level an employee is compensated at, but also examines the employee’s specific duties. In invalidating this rule, the District Court found that by implementing such a significant increase to the compensation threshold, the DOL was making the salary level the predominant consideration for an employee’s exempt status. The District Court noted that the rule “῾effectively eliminates’ consideration of whether an employee performs bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity duties in favor of what amounts to a salary-only test.” Accordingly, the District Court held that the DOL exceeded its authority and vacated the rule.
Also included in the DOL’s rule was an increase in the exemption threshold for “highly compensated” employees. Under the FLSA, employees who earn at least a certain amount annually—an amount substantially higher than the annual equivalent of the weekly standard salary level—“have almost invariably been found to meet all the other requirements of the regulations for exemption.” Accordingly, a “highly compensated” employee exemption was established with a salary threshold significantly higher than the threshold otherwise required for exemption. The DOL’s rule increased the salary level for an employee to qualify as “highly compensated” from $107,732 per year to $132,964 beginning July 1, 2024, with it set to increase again to $151,164 on January 1, 2025. The District Court’s decision invalidated the DOL’s entire rule, and thus the threshold for “highly compensated” employees is once again $107,732.
The DOL has the ability to appeal the Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals, and potentially to the US Supreme Court for review. However, before the Court of Appeals would have the opportunity to review this decision, President-elect Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President. His administration is not likely to pursue the appeal.
The District Court’s decision is significant as not only does it cancel future increases in the salary thresholds, but it also retroactively invalidates the increases that went into effect this summer. Employers who implemented policy changes in response to the rule may wish to reevaluate those changes in light of the District Court’s decision. Employers should take caution, however, that any changes made in response to this ruling do not trigger other requirements under the FLSA or other applicable employment law. Please contact a member of the Labor & Employment Practice Group with any questions you may have.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2026 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Greg Robinson assists his clients in navigating the complex world of workplace laws and regulations. He has counseled clients on a wide array of employment matters, including wage and hour disputes, discrimination charges ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Diversity
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor
- Wage & Hour
- FMLA
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- Immigration
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Enforcement Plan
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- FLSA
- Discrimination
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Coronavirus
- Sexual Harassment
- Social Media
- Sixth Circuit
- Title VII
- Employer Policies
- Transgender Issues
- Holiday Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Paid Leave Laws
- Compliance
- Supreme Court
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Litigation
- Worker Classification
- IRS
- Harassment
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Whistleblower
- Disability
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know
- Arbitration Agreements Take a Hit: What the Sixth Circuit's EFAA Decision Means for Your Workplace Agreements
- Bourbon, Ballots, and Bargaining Orders: Sixth Circuit Rejects NLRB’s Cemex Framework
- Independent Contractor and Joint Employer Rules: Looking to the Past for Future Compliance
- New Requirements for Employers in California
- Back to the Office: The EEOC Clarifies the Limits of Telework Under the ADA
