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.
Perhaps the conditions are right for a coalition drawn from employees, employers, and government representatives to wrestle the FLSA into the 21st century.
Some might find U.S. Labor Department "Fact Sheets" to be useful summaries or overviews in evaluating exemption status, but these materials are not themselves the definitions of exempt status under the FLSA's Section 13(a)(1).
Employers who are currently relying upon a "highly compensated" version of the FLSA's white-collar exemptions should carefully consider the 2016/2017 transitional implications of the higher "total annual compensation" dollar amount that goes into effect on December 1.
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.
The usefulness of website questionnaires, checklists, programs, and so on relating to the application of the FLSA's executive, administrative, professional, and outside-sales exemptions is normally very limited.