The first of several USDOL "listening" sessions provided few answers. The primary question remains whether the agency will listen this time around as it takes on the FLSA's white-collar exemptions.
Federal District Judge Amos L. Mazzant has denied the U.S. Department of Labor's request to halt proceedings in his court while it appeals the preliminary injunction he granted preventing salary-related changes in the FLSA's "white collar" exemption requirements from taking effect.
Employers are required to select and document at least one "workweek" that will apply to employees treated as falling within some FLSA exemptions.
Perhaps the conditions are right for a coalition drawn from employees, employers, and government representatives to wrestle the FLSA into the 21st century.
The U.S. Department of Labor has appealed last week's court order that prevented the salary-related changes in the FLSA's "white collar" exemptions from taking effect today.
Care and reflection are essential in deciding what to do in light of yesterday's ruling halting the salary-related "white collar" exemption changes.
Overlooking or permitting substandard work can make it harder to defend against claims that an employee should not have been treated as exempt.
With only about 60 days to go, we continue to urge employers to move forward with their final preparations for the increased dollar-amount thresholds under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's so-called "white collar" exemptions.
There appears to be some continuing misunderstanding about exactly which exempt employees might be affected by the December 1 increase in the minimum salary amount required to meet the basic compensation criterion for an executive, administrative, professional, or derivative exemption under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 13(a)(1).
Employers must steer clear of the misconception that job descriptions alone can "make" employees exempt under the FLSA's so-called "white collar" exemptions.