On April 1, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) published its third proposal in 30 days to revise regulations interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The April 1 proposed rule would revise and clarify the test for when multiple employers (known as “joint employment”) can be held responsible for wages under the FLSA. The notice and full text of the rule can be found here.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must generally pay non-exempt employees overtime at a rate of one and one half times the “regular rate” of pay when they work more than forty hours in a workweek. Overtime cannot be properly calculated unless the employer knows what to include in the regular rate. As benefits, bonuses, reimbursements and other elements of compensation have evolved, greater ambiguity has developed in determining what is included in and excluded from the regular rate. On March 29, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) published a proposal (found here) to clarify and update several regulations that interpret the regular rate of pay requirement.
On March 14, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor/Wage and Hour Division continued its practice under the Trump Administration of issuing Opinion letters by releasing three new ones – its first Opinion letters of 2019. One of the newly-released Opinion letters relates to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and two of them involve the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
On March 7, 2019, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) published a long-awaited proposal for revising the regulations relating to the white-collar exemptions from overtime and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), DOL has proposed increasing the threshold salary amount for certain white-collar exemptions from its current $455 per week (or $23,660 per year) to $679 per week, or ($35,308 per year). In 2015, DOL had proposed increasing this threshold to over $47,000 per year ($913 per week). As we reported here, that proposal was blocked by a federal court in Texas in late 2016.
On November 6, 2018, Missouri’s voters approved a medical marijuana ballot initiative, Amendment 2, while rejecting two competing medical marijuana initiatives on the ballot. This constitutional amendment empowers doctors to authorize patients to buy medical marijuana for the treatment of a variety of conditions. It likewise provides that dispensaries may sell marijuana for medicinal purposes. Amendment 2 does not cover recreational use of marijuana, which is currently allowed in nine states. Missouri is the 31st state to legalize medical marijuana. While Amendment 2 authorizes use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, this is not a “free pass” for employees. Amendment 2 does not allow employees to use marijuana while working, on the employer’s premises, or to work while impaired by marijuana use that occurred prior to the employee’s work shift. With that said, the passage of Amendment 2 will likely create multiple issues of varying complexity for Missouri’s employers for years to come, including:
On August 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division issued six new Opinion letters. Four of these opinion letters relate to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and two of the letters involve the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). As we noted in April (WHD Opinion Letters), Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta announced in 2017 that the agency would soon re-start the practice of issuing opinion letters, which the Obama Administration had discontinued. The new opinion letters are summarized below.
Who will be next? After Matt Lauer, Garrison Keiller, and Russell Simmons each faced assertions of inappropriate conduct in the last week, the “who’s next” question predominates pop culture and the daily news cycle. In the wake of numerous sexual harassment accusations unfolding across Hollywood and corporate America, sexual harassment has become one of the hottest topics in today’s news. While claims of sexual harassment in the workplace are nothing new, the almost daily media coverage of so many high-profile claims will likely result in an increase in reports of sexual harassment allegations for many employers in the immediate future.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued proposed enforcement guidance on unlawful harassment (the “Proposed Guidance”). The Proposed Guidance is intended to be a follow-up to the EEOC’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace in 2016 (“2016 Harassment Study”). The Proposed Guidance provides a detailed explanation of the EEOC’s position on the three components of a hostile work environment claim: 1) covered bases and causation; 2) hostile work environment threshold; and 3) liability.
On August 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued its opinion in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, and FRP-II, LLC d/b/a Leadpoint Business Services, and Sanitary Truck Drivers and Helpers Local 350, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 362 NLRB No. 186 (August 27, 2015), which overturned longstanding precedent regarding the standard for determining if a joint employer relationship exists.