Tag Archives: employers

New Overtime Rules for Employers to Adopt Before the New Year

Employers, the long wait is over. You finally have an answer regarding whether the federal overtime regulations are going to be changed. As discussed in previous blog posts Let’s Try this Again: Department of Labor Proposes Salary Increases for White-Collar Exemptions and Once More, With Feeling: Proposed Increase to Minimum Salary for Highly Compensated Employees, in March 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor abandoned its 2016 attempt to increase the salary threshold for exempt employees when it issued a much-anticipated proposed rule. On September 24, 2019, the DOL formally rescinded the 2016 rule and issued its new final overtime rule.

The new rule, taking effect on January 1, 2020, increases the earnings thresholds necessary to exempt executive, administrative, professional, and highly compensated employees from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime pay requirements from the levels that had been set in 2004.  Specifically, the new final rule:

  • Increases the “standard salary level” from $455 to $684 per week (equivalent to $35,568 per year for a full-year worker);
  • Raises the total annual compensation level for “highly compensated employees” from $100,000 to $107,432 per year; and
  • Revises the special salary levels for workers in U.S. territories and in the motion picture industry.

And, for the first time, the final rule allows employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) that are paid at least annually to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level for executive, administrative, and professional employees (not highly compensated employees).

Employers take note, however, that the new final rule does not change the duties portions of the otherwise affected exemptions. For more information about the new final rule, you can go to the Department of Labor website.

As New Year’s Day will be here before we know it, this is a good time for employers to audit their pay practices to make sure that employees are properly classified, update timekeeping and payroll systems, and train reclassified employees on new processes before the new rule takes effect.

Gail E. Farb
gfarb@williamsparker.com
941-552-2557

This post originally appeared on The Williams Parker Labor & Employment Blog.

The Tax Act May Limit Resolutions of Sexual Harassment Complaints

One aspect of the new Tax Act (the Act) that has not been widely reported impacts employers that amicably resolve claims of sexual harassment. The provision denies tax deductions for any settlements, payouts, or attorneys’ fees related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such payments are subject to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. Specifically, Section 162(q) to the Internal Revenue Code provides:

PAYMENTS RELATED TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE.—No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for—

(1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or
(2) attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.

The intent of this provision is to deter confidentiality provisions in settlements of harassment claims. It is unclear if this provision will actually have the desired impact. Companies may value the confidentiality provisions more than the tax deductions permitted in their absence, and thus continue to enter into confidential settlement agreements. Alternatively, this provision of the Act may end up hurting those bringing harassment claims. Alleged victims may want confidentiality provisions in order to avoid any publicity about their claims. However, by removing tax incentives for employers, an employer may reject a higher settlement amount or settlement of claims altogether.

Section 162(q) of the Act is bound to create confusion as to its applicability as it fails to define key terms. Namely, the Act fails to define “sexual harassment” or “sexual abuse,” both of which are pivotal to the application of the new provision. The Act also fails to contemplate how the provision is to be applied in settlement arrangements involving a variety of claims. Are the sex-based claims separable from a universal confidentiality covenant? Causing further confusion, the Act fails to explain what attorney’s fees are considered to be “related to such a settlement or payment.” Are these only the fees related to settlement negotiations, drafting the agreement, and execution or payment? Or does it extend to the claim’s inception and include the underlying investigation of the claims?

In light of the numerous questions raised by Section 162(q), employers should review their standard settlement agreements and practices and consider revising the breadth of any releases, nondisclosure provisions, or any representations or remedies.

This post was originally posted on the Williams Parker Labor & Employment Blog.

Ryan P. Portugal
rportugal@williamsparker.com
941-329-6626

Should I Pay Exempt Employees Who Miss Work Due to Bad Weather Conditions?

As Florida prepares for a potential direct hit by Hurricane Irma, employers have many concerns. At some point, when decisions have been made about if a business will stay open and if goods or people need to be moved out of harm’s way, the following question will most likely be asked: “Should I pay exempt employees who miss work due to bad weather conditions?”

When it comes to deductions from exempt employees’ salaries it is easy to get into trouble.  The general rule is that an exempt employee is entitled to receive his or her entire salary for any workweek he or she performed work. This means, if the worksite closes for a partial week due to bad weather conditions (such as a hurricane), and the exempt employee has worked during that workweek, the employee is entitled to his or her full salary. However, if the employer has a leave benefit, such as PTO, and the employee has leave remaining, the employer can require the employee to use paid time off for this time away from work. If the employee does not have any remaining leave benefit, he or she must be paid.

If the work site remains open during inclement weather and an employee is absent (even if due to transportation issues), the employee can be required to use paid time off.  If the employee does not have any paid time off remaining, the employer may deduct a full-day’s absence from the employee’s salary. For a more detailed explanation see this opinion letter from the U.S. Department of Labor.

As for non-exempt employees, the FLSA only requires that employees be paid for the hours they actually work. However, those non-exempt employees on fixed salaries for fluctuating workweeks, must be paid their full weekly salary in any week for which work was performed.

 

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

This post was originally published on Williams Parker’s Labor & Employment Blog. To receive updates regarding labor and employment news and insight, subscribe here