Contact
Boston
Providence
June 1, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
On May 18, 2016, the Department of Labor published a Final Rule updating the regulations that set forth the exemption from the minimum wage and overtime pay protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for executive, administrative, and professional employees. This Final Rule will go into effect on December 1, 2016, and while it does not change the basic structure of the EAP exemption, it does make several changes that will affect employers of all sizes.
What the Final Rule Does Not Change: A Primer on the FLSA “White Collar” Exemptions
Generally speaking, the FLSA ensures minimum wage and overtime pay protections for most employees. Certain classes of employees, however, are exempt from some of the FLSA’s protections. These classes of “exempt” employees include bona fide executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) employees and highly compensated employees (“HCE”), and are sometimes collectively referred to the “white collar exemptions.”
With respect to the EAP exemption, under the Department of Labor regulations in place since 1940, employers may only properly characterize employees as EAP employees if they satisfy each of three separate tests:
Salary Basis Test: The EAP employee must be paid a predetermined or fixed salary that is not subject to reduction based on variations in the quality or quantity of work performed.
Salary Level Test: The amount of salary paid to an EAP employee must meet a minimum specified amount.
- Duties Test: The EAP employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional functions as those terms are defined by Department of Labor regulations.
With respect to the HCE exemption, an employer may properly characterize employees as HCE employees if they meet three requirements: (1) their duties must comprise office or non-manual work; (2) they must satisfy HCE compensation requirements; and, (3) they must regularly perform at least one of the duties of a bona fide EAP employee.
The Final Rule leaves the general structure of both of these “white collar exemptions” unchanged.
What the Final Rule Does Change: Salary Thresholds and Calculations
Although the Final Rule does not change the structure of the “white collar exemptions,” it does update some of the thresholds and salary calculation methods.
The Final Rule primarily focuses on updating the “white collar exemptions” by making four changes (this is not an exhaustive list of changes made by the Final Rule):
Updating the Compensation Requirements for EAP Employees: The Final Rule increases the minimum salary that must be paid to bona fide EAP employees to qualify for the exemption to $47,476 annually/$913 per week (up from approximately $23,660 annually/$455 per week). This new salary threshold represents the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census region (currently the South).
Permitting the Inclusion of Nondiscretionary Bonuses in Salary Level Test Calculation for EAP Employees: The Final Rule amends the Salary Basis Test for EAP employees to permit employers to count nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including, most notably, commission payments) to satisfy up to 10% of the new standard salary level.
Updating the Compensation Requirement for HCEs: The Final Rule also increases the minimum salary that must be paid to employees for them to qualify for the HCE exemption to $134,004 annually (up from approximately $100,000). This new salary threshold represents the 90th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally.
- Establishing Automatic Updates to These Salary Levels: The Final Rule establishes a mechanism by which the salary and compensation levels for EAP employees and HCEs shall be automatically updated every three years so as to maintain the salary levels at the percentiles set forth in the Final Rule (i.e., 40th percentile of the lowest Census region for EAP employees, and 90th percentile nationally for HCEs).
So what does the Final Rule mean to employers?
Although the Final Rule leaves the general structure of the EAP and HCE exemptions intact, the changes to the salary thresholds and the manner by which employers may calculate those salaries means the Final Rule will still have a significant impact on employers. At a minimum, employers should consider the following in light of the Final Rule:
Compliance with the Final Rule: First and foremost, employers are strongly encouraged to analyze their payroll documentation well in advance of December 1, 2016 (the effective date of the Final Rule), to ensure that all employees who are entitled to FLSA protection under the Final Rule (i.e., those that do not qualify as EAP employees or HCEs) are receiving those protections. The Department of Labor has provided six months of lead time for employers to bring themselves into compliance, so violations could lead to significant penalties.
Employee Adjustments: In light of the Final Rule’s significant increases to the compensation requirements for EAP employees and HCEs, it is likely that employers will have some employees who previously qualified for a “white collar” exemption but who no longer do because their salaries fall below the updated thresholds. Absent adjustments on the part of the employer, such employees stand to lose their “exempt” status and, therefore, must begin receiving FLSA protections again, including overtime pay. Employers may want to consider making certain adjustments to mitigate the financial impact of these changes. For example, if a previously exempt salaried EAP employee earns too low of a salary to qualify for the exemption under the updated thresholds, the employer may want to consider either adjusting the employee’s salary up to satisfy the threshold (e.g., if his/her salary is very close to the new threshold such that the raise is a smaller amount than he/she would earn in overtime) or, alternatively, reclassifying the employee as a non-salaried employee with a limit or cap on allowable overtime.
- Applying Bonuses When Calculating EAP Employee Salaries: This is one area where employers may stand to actually benefit from the Final Rule. To the extent an employer pays any of its EAP employees nondiscretionary bonuses or incentive payments—for example, sales commissions—it should consider recalculating those employees’ salaries taking into account the Final Rule’s authorization that such bonuses/incentive payments may now be used to satisfy up to 10% of the salary threshold. Depending on the amounts of such payments, it is conceivable that employees who otherwise would not reach the required threshold for the EAP exemption will qualify when that 10% is taken into account.
Sign up for email alerts
© 2021 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
June 03, 2020
Adelita Orefice, Esq. Honored by Rhode Island Monthly
-
April 17, 2020
Healthcare fraud warning from the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney arising out of COVID-19
-
April 10, 2020
Financial Solutions for Small Businesses Disrupted by COVID-19
-
March 26, 2020
Massachusetts and the Federal Government Expand Telemedicine Services and Coverage in Response to COVID-19
-
March 23, 2020
COVID-19 Update for Our Clients
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
November 06, 2018
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
May 12, 2020
First Federal Indictment Arising Out of Fraudulent Applications for Paycheck Protection Program Loans Highlights Focus on COVID-19 Related Investigations
-
April 30, 2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Reporting Foreign Components
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
April 05, 2018
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
Research Misconduct
-
May 18, 2020
Why Grantees Must be Prepared for Heightened Scrutiny of Conflicts of Interest in Foreign Support for US Research
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
What is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
This website presents general information about Summit Health Law Partners and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Summit Health Law Partners by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Summit Health Law Partners' new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Summit Health Law Partners, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Summit Health Law Partners will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Summit Health Law Partners, please do not send any confidential information to us through this website or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Summit Health Law Partners.