Thanksgiving comes two days early for employers across the country who anticipated the new Department of Labor (“DOL”) overtime Final Rule creating significant pre-holiday expenses.  For those employers, who have been living in denial or under a rock for the last six months, the DOL Final Rule increased the minimum salary level for exempt employees from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $921 per week ($47,892 annually).  Although California exempt employees expected a slightly smaller increase, given that California exempt employees’ minimum salary level is currently $800 per week ($41,600 annually), California and national employers alike viewed the DOL Final Rule as an attack on their businesses.

In late September, a lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by the Nevada attorney general and joined by 20 other states, including Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Nevada, Utah, and others.  Shortly afterwards, over 50 business organizations also filed a lawsuit challenging the Final Rule.  Both lawsuits ask for preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the Final Rule from taking effect.  The Court consolidated the actions and heard oral arguments on the preliminary injunction on November 16, 2016.

Today, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.  The injunction applies nationwide and prevents the DOL from implementing the Final Rule pending further order of the Court.  The Court granted the preliminary injunction on the basis that (1) the Final Rule exceeded the DOL’s rule making authority; (2) the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm, including increased costs and detrimental effect on government programs and services; (3) the DOL failed to articulate any harm in delaying the implementation of the Final Rule; and (4) the injunction serves the public interest because it will maintain the status quo for the Court to render a meaningful decision on the merits without forcing employers and states nationwide to incur the expense and burden of complying with a potentially invalid rule.

The Court supported its decision on the basis that the Final Rule created an improper salary-based test rather than focusing on the duties employees perform to determine exempt status.  The Court found that Congress unambiguously expressed its intent for employees doing “bona fide executive, administrative, and professional capacity” duties to be exempt from overtime, but that Congress did not intend the exemption to depend on the employees’ salary.  The court held that although the DOL has the authority to define the types of duties that may qualify an employee for the exemption, nothing indicates that the DOL had the authority to raise the minimum salary level such that it supersedes the duties test. In essence, the Court held that because the new rule increased the salary so significantly, it constituted a fundamental change to the statutes operations – effectively creating a de facto salary-only test.

What Employers Should Do

Employers across the country may be wondering “What should I do now”?  If you are an employer that planned to reclassify your employees based only on the salary increase, you can now postpone (and possibly cancel) that reclassification at least until the Court issues a permanent injunction or until the preliminary injunction is appealed (and overturned).  If you are an employer that used the impending salary increase to reevaluate your exempt employees’ job duties and reclassify those employees who were unlikely to be truly exempt, we encourage you to reconsider postponing or cancelling the reclassification and to consult with legal counsel to determine the best approach for your business.  Misclassifying employees can expose your business to significant risk of unpaid wage and penalty liability.  The time may still be right for you to reclassify those employees!  After all, it may be only a matter of time until the injunction is lifted and the Final Rule is enforceable against all employers.

The Court’s preliminary injunction opinion and order can be found here: http://www.weintraub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Blog-Attachment-Overtime_-_PI_Grant_11-22-16-2164985x9DE17.pdf

Last week, voters in seven states passed new laws relating to marijuana use, both recreational and medical, which has left many employers wondering what this means to them. Can employers still enforce “zero tolerance” drug use policies? Do they have to allow employees to use marijuana in the workplace or during work hours, if they have a medical prescription? Some, but not all, state marijuana laws include specific provisions guiding employers in their handling of these issues. Take, for example, two of the laws passed last week, in Florida and Nevada.

To read Florida and Nevada’s new marijuana laws, visit the HRUSA blog at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/new-marijuana-laws-and-the-workplace/

Summary of Program

The regulations regarding California’s Mandatory Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for supervisors require that certain employers provide training to their supervisors every two years.

The Labor and Employment Group at Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin is offering a two hour in-person training session that will comply with all the requirements outlined in the regulations including things like:

  • An overview of sexual harassment laws
  • Examples of conduct that constitute sexual harassment
  • Lawful supervisory responses to complaints of harassment in the workplace
  • Strategies to prevent harassment in the workplace
  • Training on the prevention of “abusive conduct” in the workplace (AB 2054)
  • Practical and inter-active hypotheticals and examples to help illustrate what bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation can look like.
  • A discussion of the DFEH’s new updated regulations, including what must be contained in an employer’s policy against harassment, discrimination and retaliation.

If you are an employer with 50 or more employees, and have supervisors who have not yet been trained, this training is a must. We look forward to hearing from you and helping you comply with your continuing sexual harassment training obligations.

Date and Time

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Seminar Program

9:00 am – 9:30 am – Registration & Breakfast
9:30 am – 11:30 am – Seminar

Approved for two (2) hours MCLE.

Location

Weintraub Tobin
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Parking Validation provided. Please park in the Wells Fargo parking garage, entrances on 4th and 5th Street.

Cost

$75 per person

For more information please contact:

Ramona Carrillo
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Fl.
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.558.6046 | rcarrillo@weintraub.com

On October 11, 2016, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted en banc (by the full court) review in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. This rare move means that the entire Seventh Circuit court will reconsider its previous decision, which was originally issued on July 28, 2016.

Kimberly Hively began teaching as a part-time adjunct professor at Ivy Tech Community College in 2000.  In 2013, representing herself, she filed a complaint in district court alleging that she had been blocked from full-time employment at Ivy Tech because of her sexual orientation, in violation of Title VII.  Hively alleged that although she had the necessary qualifications for full-time employment and had never received a negative evaluation, Ivy Tech refused to even interview her for any of the six full-time positions for which she applied between 2009 and 2014.

Read the full HRUSA blog at http://blog.hrusa.com/blog/7th-circuit-to-revisit-title-vii-sexual-orientation-discrimination-ruling/.