On March 7th, the Department of Labor revealed its proposal to revise the overtime requirements for workers across the country. The salary threshold at which employees can be eligible for overtime pay was last increased in 2004 during the George W. Bush Administration and set at the current level of $24,000 per year. In May of 2016, the Department of Labor under the Barack Obama Administration issued its own revisions to the overtime requirement, raising the salary threshold to $47,476 per year. These revisions were set to go into effect December 1, 2016, but Court challenges immediately followed and the changes were never implemented.
The new proposal just announced by the Department of Labor would, among other changes, raise the salary threshold for overtime eligibility to $679 per week, or $35,308 per year, striking a balance between the current level and the proposed 2016 level. It further proposes an update to the “highly-compensated” employee salary level to $147,414 per year, up from the current level of $100,000. The proposal does not suggest any changes to any of the current “duties tests” to determine whether an individual employee qualifies for any of the exemptions to the overtime requirements. It does however, request recommendations from the public on whether and how the overtime requirements might be periodically updated in the future. The Department estimates an additional 1.1 million workers will become eligible for overtime compensation, as opposed to the 4.2 million who would have become eligible under the 2016 proposal.
The public will have 60 days from the date the proposal is published in the Federal Register to submit comments, at which point the Department of Labor will review the comments before publishing a final rule. The Department of Labor has identified January 2020 as its target for issuing the final rule. Once the final rule is announced, a court challenge is likely from workers groups arguing for a greater increase in the salary threshold. Anticipating such a challenge, the Department of Labor has highlighted that its proposal follows the same economic methodology used to reach the existing standard.
This proposal represents a significant change to the long-static rules regarding overtime pay, and employers should be aware changes to these rules are on the horizon. Stay tuned to this blog for further developments, and contact a KMK attorney with any questions you may have regarding how this proposal may impact your business.
- 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 ...
- Partner
For more than 20 years, Kasey Bond has been helping business clients protect and grow their organizations through the effective application of labor and employment laws. She brings extensive experience to bear for her clients ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Labor Law
- Wage & Hour
- FMLA
- NLRB
- EEOC
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- FLSA
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Discrimination
- Holiday Policies
- Sexual Harassment
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Sixth Circuit
- Coronavirus
- Social Media
- Title VII
- Employer Policies
- Transgender Issues
- Religion Discrimination
- Employment Litigation
- Diversity
- Employer Rules
- Overtime Pay
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- Paid Leave Laws
- NLRA
- Compliance
- Tax Credit
- Supreme Court
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Worker Classification
- Litigation
- Harassment
- IRS
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- Race Discrimination
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- 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
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Securities Law
- Privacy Laws
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- 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
- EEOC Rescinds Anti-Harassment Guidance Addressing Transgender Protections
- The EEOC’s Renewed Focus on Employer DEI Programs in 2026

