Management should take care not to focus so much upon FLSA-related "salary basis" developments that it fails to note changes in salary thresholds required under analogous state-law exemptions.
Employers are required to select and document at least one "workweek" that will apply to employees treated as falling within some FLSA exemptions.
Donald Trump's election does not mean that employers may now ignore the coming changes in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's "white collar" definitions.
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.
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.
Recent "open letters" and related publicity strongly suggest that a substantial increase in the salary test for the FLSA "white collar" exemptions is probable.
The U.S. Labor Department has no authority to set the minimum salary for exempt "white collar" employees based upon what they "ought to be" paid.