Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

Erin Mulvaney

Erin Mulvaney covers labor and employment issues from the Swamp to Silicon Valley. She's a Texas native based in Washington, D.C. Contact her at emulvaney@alm.com. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney

More from this author

Law Firms Mentioned

<p dir="ltr"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1068" src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Acosta

/uploads/sites/398/2017/10/Seyfarth-Shaw-Office-Sign-Article-201710101636.jpg" alt="" width="620" height="372" /></p> &nbsp; &nbsp; <span style="font-weight: 400">The U.S. Labor Department has big decisions to make about regulations that will determine the overtime eligibility of millions of U.S. workers.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400">The Labor Department under </span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202799842956/How-Companies-Are-Reacting-to-Overtime-Rule-Uncertainty?mcode=1202615432818&amp;curindex=1">Secretary Alexander Acosta has until Oct. 31</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> to decide whether to appeal a Texas court ruling that struck down an </span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/final2016/">Obama-era rule</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> that would have increased the overtime salary threshold for workers from $23,660 to $47,476. The regulation was set to take effect Dec. 1, 2016. Several states and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued to spike the rule.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400">The last update to the overtime regulation was in 2004. Acosta has acknowledged the salary threshold should be revisited. </span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202791996769/Trumps-Labor-Dept-Tells-Court-It-Will-Revise-Obamas-Overtime-Rule">In court filings</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong>,</strong></span> the Labor Department argued in June for its authority to set a threshold but did not commit to the $47,476 salary, or $913 per week, that Obamas Labor Department set. The final rule was the product of more than two years of discussion and hundreds of thousands of comments.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400">The Labor Department </span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/07/26/2017-15666/request-for-information-defining-and-delimiting-the-exemptions-for-executive-administrative">sent a request for information</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> opening the floor for stakeholders and observers to propose changes to the rule. There were 157,587 total responses before the comment period recently closed. Some of the big questions included: Should the department appeal the Texas court���s ruling? How should the salary threshold be determined? Should multiple salary levels and automatic updates be considered? Should only duties be considered in determining overtime status?</span> <span style="font-weight: 400">Heres a snapshot of what a handful of U.S. law firms���representing management and employees���told the Labor Department.</span> <p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4105803/Littler-Comments-2017-RFI-on-Overtime-09-25-17.pdf">Littler Mendelson</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> | <strong>The ��employment-side firm took issue with the 2016 overtime rule for allegedly ignoring ���Congressional intent���</strong> by shifting the balance of overtime status being determined by a minimum salary and the duties performed by the employee. The firm pushed for the salary threshold to be determined by the 2004 methodology, which calculates the 20th percentile for salaried employees in the South���the lowest-wage Census region���and retail industry. Under that level, the minimum salary level would be $32,000 per year, which the firm argues would screen out ���obviously nonexempt employees.��� The firm argued against multiple salary levels and different levels of exemption.</span></p> <span style="font-weight: 400">Littler Mendelson </span><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202799842956/How-Companies-Are-Reacting-to-Overtime-Rule-Uncertainty?mcode=1202617074964&amp;curindex=3">included a poll it conducted</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> among companies. The survey touched on a question posted by the Labor Department about how companies are responding to the uncertainty surrounding this issue. ���About half of the almost 900 responding employers implemented changes to comply with the 2016 final rule before the preliminary injunction was issued. Of the remaining respondents, 39.4 percent had made plans to comply, but did not implement; and 10.6 percent had taken no steps to comply.���</span> <p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0WW6B2On5rVMThMLUg1bnB6WUE/view?usp=sharing">Fisher &amp; Phillips</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> | <strong>The firm argued against multiple salary levels and automatic updates to salaries. It pushed for a duties test of workers</strong>, which would set status of an employer based on what they do in that position, rather than a salary level. ���As with the ���salary basis��� concept, a salary-threshold requirement serves as a barrier to the exempt status or at least some employees who meet an exemption duties criteria. History has shown repeatedly that it is a fool���s errand to try to resolve an irresolvable question of whether the level is ���too high,��� or ���too low,��� or ���just right,��� or should be set by region, by census area,w ith reference to employer size, and so on.���</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4105821/Seyfarth-Shaw-RFI-Response.pdf">Seyfarth Shaw</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> | <strong>The firm supported the Labor Department using the 2004 methodology</strong> as well, which excludes from exemption roughly the bottom 20 percent of salaried employees in the South and the retail industry. It argued against multiple salary levels and also against a duties-only test, which would eliminate any salary level.</span></p> <span style="font-weight: 400">���In sum, it is our view that the exemptions��� minimum salary level must be set at a level that satisfies is historical gatekeeper function. Indeed, since at least 1940, it has remained axiomatic that the purpose of the salary level is to ���provid[e] a ready method of screening out the obviously nonexempt employees.��� To that end, the salary level should be set at a level that separates those who clearly would not meet a duties test from those who possibly could.��� </span> <span style="font-weight: 400">The firm also stresses the importance of addressing questions��surrounding��the��overtime regulations.��</span><span style="font-weight: 400">���Uncertainty concerning the implementation of the 2016 revisions to the EAP rules created chaotic circumstances for many employers��� ��Through all of this, it is clear to us that employees suffered as they awaited word of how their career paths would be impacted. Some enjoyed raises without having earned them through merit. Others were reclassified and had their hours reduced. Now that the rules were enjoined and have been declared inoperative, some employers have reversed the changes they made; some plan that reversal; and some will do nothing more. Anything they do will create risks of claims made by impacted employees.���</span> <p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4105842/Rezl-Law.pdf">Rudy Exelrod Zieff &amp; Lowe</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> | <strong>The plaintiff-side firm principally argued that the ��Labor Department should appeal the ruling in the Texas case</strong>���<em>Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor</em>���and continue to fight for implementation of the Obama-era rule. The firm argued the test used to set the 2004 regulation was flawed and resulted in roughly 700,000 workers being misclassified.</span></p> <span style="font-weight: 400">The firm argues that by the time the Labor Department released its proposed update to the overtime salary threshold in 2015, the applicable $23,660 threshold, set in 2004 without any mechanism for automatic increase, was below the poverty line for a family of four and covered just 8 percent of salaried workers. </span> <span style="font-weight: 400">���Revisiting the salary threshold from what is reflected in the 2016 final rule is a waste of time and resources that prioritizes the desires of corporate America above the needs of millions of working women and men who have already waited too long for the overtime pay they have earned," the firm said in its letter to DOL. "The effect of the opinion is to disregard the department���s expertise and authority, overturning a valid exercise of rulemaking which Congress specifically delegated to the department.��� </span> <p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4105844/Nichols-Kaster.pdf">Nichols Kaster</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"> | <strong>Nichols Kaster, a plaintiffs firm, recommends the Labor Department adopt a threshold reflecting the 50th earnings percentile</strong> of full time salaried workers rather than using the 2004 salary level as a starting point. The firm does not support different standard salary levels for executive, administrative and professional exemptions. It also argues for keeping the salary test and not just relying on duties and for automatic updates to the regulation moving forward.</span></p> <span style="font-weight: 400">���A significant increase in qualifying salary is necessary not only to account for the declining real value of the existing salary threshold, but also to correct for the fact that the department set the standard salary level in 2004 without adjusting for the elimination of the more rigorous long duties test. The $455 per week threshold ($23,660 annually) that the department set in 2004 is a prime example of how the salary level can become outdated and ineffective. In 2015, a worker earning $23,660 was under the poverty line for a family of four and yet still met the ���white-collar��� salary threshold.������</span> <p dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4105849/USDOL-EAP-RFI-Comment-FINAL.pdf">State attorney generals</a></strong></span><span style="font-weight: 400"><strong> from New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington</strong> said they support the 2016 final rule. The coalition argues to keep a balanced salary test and the $913 per week threshold. The group criticizes a clause in the Labor Departments request for information that says a review of the salary test will focus on ���lowering the regulatory burden������a directive from the Trump White House to federal agencies.</span></p> <div style="float: left;margin: 2px 15px 0px 0px;width: 245px"><img class="size-full wp-image-1070" src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Acosta

/uploads/sites/398/2017/10/schneiderman-ferguson-garner-Vert-201710102013.jpg" alt="" width="245" height="369" /> <i>Eric Schneiderman</i></div> <span style="font-weight: 400">���The 2016 final rule does not require modification on the grounds set forth in Executive Order 13777; indeed, the 2016 final rule furthers President Trump���s job creation goals," the state attorneys general said. They added: "An original purpose of the overtime requirement was to create a financial incentive for employers to hire more employees rather than requiring existing workers to work longer hours.</span> <span style="font-weight: 400">"We note that the 2016 final rule was the carefully considered product of a two-year deliberative process in which USDOL reviewed more than 270,000 comments from a broad array of constituencies, including unions, worker advocacy groups, small businesses, Fortune 500 corporations, state and local governments, and economists," the attorneys general said in their letter, submitted by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, to the Labor Department.</span> <p dir="ltr"><span style="font-weight: 400"><span style="text-decoration: underline"><strong><a href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4105847/NELA-Comments-DOL-RFI-RIN-1235-AA20-Submitted.pdf">National Employment Lawyers Association</a></strong></span>��|��</span><span style="font-weight: 400"><strong>The group argued there should be a substantial increase in salary levels required to qualify for overtime,</strong> along with regular automatic updates to those salary levels. The association criticized the tenor of the Labor Department���s request for information, which the group said ���suggests the possibility of fundamental changes that would depart from the historical positions and promulgations of the Department.��� The group pushed for the DOL to appeal the Texas ruling and fight for the final rule the Obama Labor Department issued.</span></p> <span style="font-weight: 400">���We are disappointed by the department���s failure to more aggressively defend and implement the 2016 final rule, as well as by the poorly reasoned and erroneous decision of the Texas district court purporting to strike down the 2016 final rule. The department���s failure to defend the 2016 final rule vigorously and to indicate immediately that it would be appealing Judge (Amos) Mazzant���s rulings ��� represents an abdication of its mission and is irreconcilable with eight decades of regulatory history, during which the department issued and enforced comparable salary tests as a necessary and fundamental requirement for establishing" exemptions for executive, administrative and professional employees.</span> <p dir="ltr"></p> <

  • Acosta

> Knitter: Too few entities/relations are generated compared to number of concepts (only 98% (89/90) concepts are converted).

Lean Adviser Legal

Think Lean Daily Message

"The world of Strategic Management (SM) has four traditional stages: Plan, Execute, Monitor and Improve. That s what we shall be doing, planning our work assignments as projects, executing them, monitoring our progress and then seeing how we can learn and improve."

Learn More


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.