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
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Arbitration
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Religion Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- IRS
- NLRB
- Race Discrimination
- Litigation
- Employer Policies
- OSHA
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Social Media
- Retirement
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- ADAAA
- NLRA
- Title VII
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Privacy
- 401(k)
- Transgender Issues
- FMLA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Benefits
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Overtime Pay
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcat: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 1/23/23
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory New Year's Episode
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory Holiday Party Episode
- Independent Contractor Classification - Deadline to Submit Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is Approaching
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Thanksgiving for Plaintiffs' Attorneys
- Why Every Employer Including Those Outside NYC Should Stay Abreast of the NYC Pay Transparency Law
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Interview with Author and Lawyer Steven Mitchell Sack
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Are You Caught in a TRAP?
- California New Pay Transparency Law
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Controversial Episode