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.
© 2025 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
- Employment Law
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Employment Litigation
- Employer Rules
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Worker Classification
- Coronavirus
- Artificial Intelligence
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Title VII
- OSHA
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Compliance
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- Harassment
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Diversity
- Arbitration
- FMLA
- Federal Trade Commission
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Whistleblower
- Sexual Harassment
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- No Free Delivery: Misclassification Comes at a Price
- One Tweet Away From Trouble: Social Media at Work
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA