USDOL reportedly is submitting a proposed rule for review by the federal Office of Management and Budget. Publication on target for first quarter.
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a fresh look at how courts analyze FLSA exemptions. It concluded that there is no basis to "narrowly construe" the statutory language regarding FLSA exemptions, and thus, held that service advisors employed by automobile dealerships can qualify for the Section 13(b)(10) exemption from federal overtime.
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).
Congress's 2013 appropriations apparently continue to prohibit the U.S. Labor Department from using any funds to challenge the FLSA Section 13(b)(10)(A) overtime exemption as applied to dealership employees performing the typical work of service writers, service advisors, etc.
Two new court rulings find the FLSA's Section 13(b)(10)(A) overtime exemption to apply, notwithstanding the U.S. Labor Department's 2011 commentary.
After 38 days, the U.S. Labor Department still has not provided a copy.
The U.S. Labor Department apparently intends to reinvigorate its so-called "Right to Know" initiative.
There is reason for concern that the U.S. Labor Department will attack the FLSA overtime-exempt status of such dealership employees in 2013.
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.