Client Alerts & Insights
Labor Department Plans to Revise “White Collar” Overtime Rule
July 5, 2017
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) plans to revise its pending overtime rule, which would have more than doubled the minimum annual salary for workers in “white collar” executive, administrative and professional positions to be “exempt” from eligibility for overtime wages.
In late November, Texas District Judge Amos Mazzant blocked the DOL from implementing the revised rule with a nationwide preliminary injunction. Judge Mazzant held that Congress defined the “white collar” exemptions based on an employee’s duties, not on his or her salary. Judge Mazzant concluded that, “Congress did not intend salary to categorically exclude an employee with [exempt] duties from the exemption.”
In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the government changed position, stating: “[DOL] has decided not to advocate for the specific salary level ($913 per week) set in the final rule at this time and intends to undertake further rulemaking to determine what the salary level should be.”
DOL, however, intends to wait until after the Fifth Circuit decides whether the regulatory agency has the statutory authority to require employers to meet any salary test before revising the pending overtime rule.
As the government told the Fifth Circuit: “The rulemaking process imposes significant burdens on both the promulgating agency and the public, and [DOL] is reluctant to issue a proposal predicated on its authority to establish a salary level test while this litigation remains pending.”
Instead, DOL will publish a request for information seeking public input on several questions that will aid in the development of a proposal.
It is unclear what the DOL would set as a minimum salary threshold, although it is likely to be substantially less than the $47,476 floor in the pending overtime rule. During his confirmation hearing in March, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said the $47,476 was excessive and indicated that he was open to a more reasonable salary level—“somewhere around $33,000.” He also noted that it has not been adjusted in over 10 years.
For more information on this topic, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.
Johanna Fabrizio Parker at jparker@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4585.
Rick Hepp at rhepp@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4657.
Latest News
Supreme Court 2025: Key Free Speech Rulings
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions signaled a more regulator-friendly view of the internet—upholding laws on age verification and foreign-owned platforms under intermediate scrutiny, even where speech is burdened. These cases reaffirm that content-neutral rules that incidentally affect speech are likely to survive constitutional challenge.
Nobody—Not Even Einstein—Has Figured Out What Causes Gravity, but You Need to if You Are Facing a Putative Consumer Class Action in the 9th Circuit
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.
Going Back to the “Well”: Plaintiffs Target Wellness Branding by Attacking Ingredients
Plaintiffs are increasingly targeting food and beverage companies’ “wellness” and “free-from” marketing claims, focusing on ingredient-level details that allegedly contradict broad statements on the labels.