Wage & Hour Litigation Blog

Opt Ins are Out (of Luck) Appealing Decertification

Posted in Decertification

Authored by Michael Kopp

With all the drama of a get-away chase, the Third Circuit recently brought to a screeching halt plaintiffs’ counsel’s elaborate maneuvers to end run repeated decertification of their FLSA actions, and held as a matter of first impression in Halle v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. that opt-in plaintiffs have no right to appeal decertification. The decision is important for three reasons. First, it offers a road block against the use of opt-in plaintiffs to appeal a decertification order, including where the named plaintiffs’ claims have been mooted. Second, it offers instruction on how to structure class notices to foreclose potential opt-in appeals. Third, it underscores the heightened strategic value of Rule 68 offers to named plaintiffs in FLSA actions after decertification to block appeals.

In a long and winding procedural path, plaintiffs’ counsel employed a “whack a mole” strategy to keep the possibility of a collective action alive after successive certification defeats. Counsel originally filed two separate FLSA collective actions, asserting claims that two hospitals and their affiliates failed to compensate work performed during unpaid meal period times. After conditional certification of the separate actions, over 3,000 and 800 individuals respectively opted into the two actions. In a happier moment in this narrative, the district court judges decertified the actions, due to differences in practices for reversing the 30-minute automatic deduction for meal periods, and differences in job duties and supervision that would impact whether work was performed during meal periods.

Plaintiffs’ first escape maneuver was a voluntary dismissal of their claims with prejudice, in the hopes of prompt appellate review of the interlocutory decertification orders. Instead, the Third Circuit rejected this “procedural slight-of-hand,” and held that by dismissing their claims, the named plaintiffs had mooted their claims (along with any right to challenge decertification). The appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Not to be deterred, plaintiffs’ counsel filed two new class actions against the same hospital defendants, with only slight modifications to the proposed class. The district courts promptly slammed the brakes, struck the collective allegations, and held that issue preclusion barred the named plaintiffs (who were opt ins in the prior actions), from re-litigating the prior decertification decision. In what appeared to be the end of the road, the employers then mooted the named plaintiffs’ claims by extending Rule 68 offers which were all accepted.

Not willing to give up the chase, plaintiff’s counsel deployed opt-in plaintiffs to appeal the order striking the collective allegations, claiming the opt-ins were “party plaintiffs” with full rights to appeal. The Third Circuit rejected these “procedural gymnastics,” finding that (1) the order striking the collective allegations effectively dismissed the opt-ins as parties to the action, and they therefore could not appeal the subsequent judgments, and (2) the opt-ins had signed consent forms ceding the individual authority to litigate, including the right to appeal. The Third Circuit recognized the claimed “unfairness” of leaving the opt-in plaintiffs without an opportunity to appeal where the employer “picked off” the named plaintiffs. Nonetheless, the court found that the “potential for unfairness” cannot trump an absence of jurisdiction.

Halle is, accordingly, important guidance in structuring class notices, and highlights the continuing strategic value of Rule 68 offers later in the action, including to moot claims and thereby potentially obtain expedited finality for a decertification order.

A Fresh Take on the Horizontal Joint Employment Theory: Conditional Certification for Subway Employees Denied

Posted in Conditional Certification, DOL Enforcement, Joint Employment

SDFLAuthored by Christopher Kelleher and Noah Finkel

Seyfarth Synopsis: Federal court denies motion for conditional certification for a proposed class of employees working at separate Subway franchises.

Earlier this year, the DOL’s Wage-Hour Division issued a much-publicized Administrator Interpretation on what employers constitute joint employers, including an explanation of how two or more employers under common ownership can constitute “horizontal” joint employers.  As articulated by the WHD’s sweeping pronouncement, it appeared that virtually any jointly-owned entities might constitute joint employers, at least in the eyes of the WHD.

But in a victory for employers in the battle over joint employer status, a federal district judge in the Southern District of Florida recently denied a motion for conditional collective action certification for a group of Subway employees of different franchises with common ownership.  In Aguiar, et al. v. Subway 39077, Inc., Timothy E. Johnson, et al., plaintiff Yirandi Aguiar sought collective action certification for the overtime claims for all “Store Managers” working at approximately 38 Subway franchises owned and operated as separate corporate entities by Timothy Johnson in Southern Florida.

Applying the usual “fairly lenient standard” to determine whether conditional collective action  certification was warranted, the Court rejected Aguiar’s attempt to certify the collective on several levels.  First, the proposed collective was comprised of individuals employed by approximately 38 separate, non-party corporate entities.  Second, Aguiar only provided “Consent to Join” forms and affidavits from three individuals including herself, and thus failed to sufficiently show the existence of other employees who wished to opt into the action.

Third, and most significantly, even if Aguiar could satisfy these first two elements, the Court found that the putative plaintiffs were not similarly situated.  In making this determination, the Court noted that the individuals worked at separate corporate entities, and Aguiar did not show that she or other employees were authorized to sell or make sandwiches at any other of the 38 franchises.  Additionally, the franchises were spread throughout Southern Florida, and thus were not geographically concentrated.  And finally, Aguiar failed to provide information regarding a joint payroll department or joint supervision over the proposed collective action members.

This case demonstrates that even under the “lenient standard” described above, merely alleging common ownership over a number of franchises is not enough to show joint employment status or to obtain a broad conditional certification order.

Texas Judge Preliminarily Enjoins New Overtime Exemption Rules Nationwide: What Steps Should Follow?

Posted in DOL Enforcement, Misclassification/Exemptions

Authored by Seyfarth’s Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group

Late Tuesday afternoon, Judge Amos Mazzant of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order enjoining the U.S. Department of Labor’s implementation and enforcement of the new overtime exemption rules that were set to go into effect on December 1, 2016. The court granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by the attorneys general of 22 states, in which the states argued among other things that the new rules were unlawfully promulgated and would be likely to cause irreparable harm to the states that requested the injunction. The court also considered amicus arguments made by various chambers of commerce and trade associations, which filed a companion case asserting similar and separate grounds for overturning the DOL’s new rules. Although the court’s order leaves some room for confusion on this point, it appears to apply to all public and private sector employers nationwide.

Although an important and exciting step in the right direction, this is not the final word.

First, this is a temporary injunction. It contains strong suggestions of what the court might ultimately do with a final determination regarding whether to invalidate the new rules. It explains various reasons why the rules are unlawful. But, at this time, all of those reasons and the results they might ultimately justify are preliminary.

Second, unlike most pre-judgment orders, an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable. On appeal, the appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard. Generally speaking, a court abuses its discretion by (1) committing an error of law, such as applying an incorrect legal standard, (2) basing the preliminary injunction on a clearly erroneous finding of fact, or (3) issuing an injunction that contains an error in form or substance. There are aspects of the court’s order that the federal government might argue prove each of these points. But it is fair to say that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the court that would hear the government’s appeal, rarely overturns orders granting preliminary injunctions. Within the past several decades, it has done so very few times.

Third, if it does not win reversal of the district court’s order in this case, it is conceivable that the government would seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Even if the Court of Appeals were to reverse, the States and Associations could petition the Supreme Court for review. Given the current composition of the Court, a 4 – 4 decision would leave the Fifth Circuit’s decision intact, leaving open the possibility that other Circuits, when confronted with the issue, could rule differently. That would create a difficult dilemma for employers that operate in multiple states across the country.

Fourth, if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail in securing the court’s judgment that the DOL’s new rules are unlawful, the federal government will have another opportunity to appeal. With the passage of time necessary for the parties to litigate their respective positions through judgment and then to wind their way through the appellate process, it is hard to predict whether an appeal would actually follow. The new administration, its new Secretary of Labor, and its new Solicitor of Labor would likely have much to consider by that point. And this sets aside for the moment the possibility that the congress will successfully pass—and the new president will sign—a Congressional Review Act resolution, mooting the need for further litigation at all.

To put it simply, the court’s ruling on Tuesday creates a significant amount of uncertainty that is going to last for a while longer. And it begs the enormous question: What should businesses do in reaction to the court’s preliminary injunction?

Many businesses are very far along in their plans to comply with the new rules by December 1. Many have already begun their communications with employees whose pay or classification would be impacted because of the new rules. Some have already effected changes impacting those employees. Further, those businesses that had not taken steps to comply have employees who have almost certainly heard about the rules and have assumed they would soon receive raises or become overtime eligible.

In that light, the injunction—though heralded as a positive development for businesses—has the potential to create significant risk and disruption. A careful hand is required. Obviously there is much to consider and much more to do. But here is a deft starting point:

  • If changes are about to be made, consider whether they can be postponed while stakeholders decide what further steps should be taken. The decision whether to postpone changes and what further steps to take must account for any payroll, timekeeping, and human resources changes are in progress. Can those changes be stalled as well, without unacceptable costs and other business disruptions?
  • If communications are set to be distributed to employees who would be impacted by the December 1 rule, postpone them while stakeholders develop their next steps plan.
  • If changes have not been made but communications have been distributed or begun, consider whether a revised communication plan can be executed while postponing the changes that have not yet been made. Any revised communications plan should begin with the fundamental explanation that: A federal court in Texas has issued an order that makes it uncertain how the FLSA’s overtime pay exemptions apply to employees who would be impacted by the new rules that were to go into effect on December 1. Because of the court’s order, those rules will not go into effect as expected. To ensure that it is able to follow the laws that govern how employees are paid under the FLSA, the company has revised its plans and will be reporting back to you soon about how this will impact you.
  • If communications have been distributed and changes have been made, stop and consider carefully how to proceed. Because this is an extremely positive result achieved by the plaintiffs in Texas, some business may be excited to quickly undo the changes that they made. Caution and care are advisable.
  • Employees who have been reclassified from exempt to nonexempt status or who have received pay raises will have begun to acclimate to their new status and pay. An abrupt change could cause them to seek assistance from a plaintiff’s lawyer, and could open a Pandora’s Box of potential (hopefully unjustifiable) claims.

For businesses that have not done anything to prepare for the December 1 rule, keep your eyes and ears open for further developments.

Of course, these are also not the final words on how businesses should adapt their actions to the turbulence that this otherwise positive court ruling could cause. What is important is that business stakeholders consider carefully what their next steps will be and to weigh carefully the costs and benefits of available options. A careful plan will help to avoid further business disruptions, unhappy workforces, and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Electoral Impact: How Does Tuesday’s Result Affect the Overtime Exemption Regulations?

Posted in DOL Enforcement, Misclassification/Exemptions, Overtime

Capitol HillAuthored by Alex Passantino

As the nation waited for the final states to be called in the early morning hours on Wednesday, we here at the Wage & Hour Litigation Blog focused on our one thing:  what impact would the result have on the DOL’s overtime exemption regulations scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016?  How does the election of a Republican House, a Republican Senate, and President-Elect Donald Trump change what employers should be doing as we speed towards the December 1 deadline?

The short answer is that — at least for the near-term — employers should continue the same way as they have been, with a laser focus on being in compliance by December 1.

That being said, there are a couple of ways that the regulations can be stopped before December 1.  And there are a couple of others that may change the game after December 1.

The first path is through the Eastern District of Texas.  As we have reported previously, 21 states and dozens of trade associations filed separate lawsuits (which since have been consolidated) challenging the overtime exemptions rules on a variety of grounds.  A hearing on the states’ motion for injunctive relief is scheduled for next week, on November 16.  The trade associations are being permitted to participate as amici in the states’ case, and also have filed an expedited motion for summary judgment.  It is possible that the judge will enjoin the rules in advance of the December 1 effective date.  As is the case with most litigation, however, that result is less than certain.

A second pre-December 1 path to stopping — or at least delaying — the overtime exemption regulations is through Senator Alexander’s Overtime Reform and Review Act, S. 3464.  That bill would — by statute, not by regulation — increase the salary level to $692 per week on December 1, 2016, then increase it again in 2018, 2019, and 2020 until it hit $913/week.  The bill also contains special provisions protecting nonprofit, state and local government, and education employers from salary increases unless certain conditions are met.  Although the Senate has been expected to take up the bill upon return to Capitol Hill, the short legislative calendar and the threat of a veto by President Obama pose significant hurdles to relief before the December 1 deadline.

Once we get into 2017, there are additional tools at the disposal of Congress and a Trump Administration.  With the new salary level taking effect nearly eight weeks before Inauguration Day, however, there will be substantial political calculations involved in any use of those tools.

One tool is the seldom-used Congressional Review Act, a law that allows Congress to review and disapprove new agency regulations within prescribed time periods.  Congress could pass a “resolution of disapproval” of the new regulations that would have the effect of rescinding the rules.  Under the CRA, any regulation issued within the final 60 legislative days before Congress adjourns sine die is treated as having been issued on the 15th legislative day of the next session of Congress.  This allows the CRA resolution to be considered by the new Congress and, in this case, the new President, which makes it much more likely that the resolution will be successful.  Because the final 60 legislative days can be counted only in retrospect, the regulations that might be subject to this procedure are unknown.  An early estimate placed the “deadline” at May 16, 2016.  The overtime exemption rules were issued on May 23, 2016, which would place them within the review period.  Whether they actually fall within that period depends on how much Congress is in session over the coming weeks.  Assuming the overtime exemption rules fall within the relevant period, in the next session of Congress, and after January 20, 2017, President Trump could sign the CRA resolution, which would make it as if the rules never existed.

Finally, we could see rulemaking by the Trump Administration, such as a notice-and-comment rulemaking revising the salary level downward and/or eliminating the three-year automatic update provision.  Going through the notice-and-comment process would be time-consuming and likely would not result in any relief on the salary level until well into 2017, at best.

Ultimately, employers should continue their efforts to be compliant by December 1.  There are far too many variables at this point to conclude otherwise.

New York’s Highest Court: No “Stretch” in Yogi’s Independent Contractor Classification

Posted in Independent Contractors
Seyfarth Synopsis: The New York Court of Appeals recently rejected the narrow view of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and found that substantial evidence did not support a finding that certain yoga instructors were misclassified as independent contractors.

Co-authored by Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler

As wage and hour “gurus” are aware, the “mantra” of most federal and state agencies these days is a restrictive view of independent contractor status. Accordingly, in a rare yet welcome decision that we hope will yield some good “karma,” the New York Court of Appeals held in Matter of Yoga Vida NYC, Inc. that substantial evidence did not warrant the Appeals Board’s finding certain yoga instructors were misclassified as independent contractors.

In Yoga Vida, a yoga studio employed both staff instructors (who were classified as employees) and non-staff instructors (who were classified as independent contractors). The State’s Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board held that the non-staff instructors were misclassified, applying a strict reading of the employer-employee test under the New York Labor Law.

The Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence did not warrant the Appeals Board’s finding. The Court relied upon the facts that the non-staff instructors:

  • Were paid only if a certain number of students attend their classes (unlike staff instructors, who were paid regardless of whether anyone attends a class);
  • Had no restrictions on where they could teach, and were free to inform Yoga Vida students of classes they teach at other studios so the students can follow them; and
  • Were not required to attend meetings or receive training.

Rejecting the position of the Appeals Board and the dissenting judge, the court held that the above factors outweighed the fact that Yoga Vida:

  • Inquired if the instructors had proper licenses, published the master schedule on its web site, and provided the space for the classes;
  • Generally determined what fee was charged, collected the fee directly from the students, and provided a substitute instructor if the non-staff instructor was unable to teach a class and could not find a substitute; and
  • Received feedback about the instructors from the students.

In reaching this decision, the Court held that, “The requirement that the work be done properly is a condition just as readily required of an independent contractor as of an employee and not conclusive as to either.”

Although it is certainly a welcome decision for employers, it is not time to say “Namaste” just yet. The mere fact that a worker is labeled an “independent contractor” and willing to work as such (without receiving minimum wage or an overtime premium) is not enough to remove the worker from the coverage of wage-hour laws. Careful compliance for employers in classifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees remains as important as ever. Om.

NY DOL To Increase Salary Threshold for Exempt Employees

Posted in DOL Enforcement, Misclassification/Exemptions, State Laws/Claims

NYDOLAuthored by Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler

As we all know, the revisions to the FLSA’s “white collar” exemptions will take effect December 1 and will increase the salary level required for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions to $913 per week (or $47,476 per year).  Avid wage and hour practitioners in New York have been waiting to see if the State DOL would propose a similar increase for exempt status under the NY Labor Law.

The wait is over.

On October 19, State DOL proposed amendments to its existing wage orders that would increase the salary threshold from the current $675 per week.  In keeping with the upcoming gradual increase in the State’s minimum wage levels, the proposal would raise the salary threshold in tiers:

Large Employers (11 or more employees) in New York City

  • $825.00 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $975.00 per week on and after 12/31/17; and
  • $1,125.00 per week on and after 12/31/18;

Small Employers (10 or fewer employees) in New York City

  • $787.50 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $900.00 per week on and after 12/31/17;
  • $1,012.50 per week on and after 12/31/18; and
  • $1,125.00 per week on and after 12/31/19;

Employers in Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties

  • $750.00 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $825.00 per week on and after 12/31/17;
  • $900.00 per week on and after 12/31/18;
  • $975.00 per week on and after 12/31/19;
  • $1,050.00 per week on and after 12/31/20; and
  • $1,125.00 per week on and after 12/31/21;

Employers Outside of New York City, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties

  • $727.50 per week on and after 12/31/16;
  • $780.00 per week on and after 12/31/17;
  • $832.00 per week on and after 12/31/18;
  • $885.00 per week on and after 12/31/19;
  • $937.50 per week on and after 12/31/20

If these salary thresholds are adopted, the minimum requirement for exempt employees in New York will surpass the federal threshold of $973 at various points in time, the earliest on December 31, 2017 for “large” New York City employers.  However, the FLSA salary levels are subject to automatic revision every three years, beginning in 2020, based on the 40th percentile of full-time salaried workers in the region in which the salary level is lowest (historically, the South).

In addition to the increased salary threshold, the proposed Wage Orders also adjusts the amount employers can deduct for a uniform allowance and claim as a meal and tip credit in line with the gradual increase of the minimum wage toward $15.

While these are proposed amendments, we expect they will be implemented given that they track the forthcoming minimum wage increases.  The Department of Labor will receive public comments until December 3, 2016.  We will update you once the regulations become effective.

 

SDNY Adopts Pilot Mandatory Mediation Program for FLSA Cases

Posted in Settlement

Authored by Robert S. Whitman and Howard M. Wexler

Seyfarth Synopsis: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently announced that cases filed under the FLSA and assigned to Judges Abrams, Briccetti, Carter, Daniels, Ramos, Seibel, and Woods will be ordered directly to mediation, before the initial Rule 16 conference, with limited pre-mediation disclosures. If successful, other Districts may implement similar procedures.

As we all know, wage and hour litigation continues to soar to record highs.  We expect 2016 will be another record year and that the revisions to the white collar exemptions effective December 1st will further increase the number of lawsuits around the country.

In an attempt to stem its ever-increasing caseload of FLSA cases, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently announced that, beginning October 3, 2016, cases filed under the FLSA and assigned to Judges Abrams, Briccetti, Carter, Daniels, Ramos, Seibel, and Woods will be ordered directly to mediation, before the initial Rule 16 conference, with limited pre-mediation disclosures.

The mediation must take place within 60 days of the referral to mediation.  The limited information exchange includes the following:

  1. Any existing documents that describe the Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities.
  2. Records of wages paid to and hours worked by the Plaintiff (e.g., payroll records, time sheets, work schedules, wage statements and wage notices).
  3. The Plaintiff must produce a spreadsheet of alleged underpayments and other damages.
  4. The Defendant(s) must produce any existing documents describing compensation policies or practices.
  5. If the Defendants intend to assert an inability to pay, then they must produce proof of financial condition, including tax records, business records, or other documents demonstrating their financial status.

If the parties reach a settlement at the mediation, “they shall prepare a joint statement explaining the basis for the proposed settlement, including any provision for attorney fees, and why it should be approved as fair and reasonable,” in accordance with Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015).

The SDNY’s announcement comes on the heels of the effort by its sister court, the Eastern District of New York, to expand its mediation program for FLSA cases by “seeking mediators with substantial knowledge of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to join the EDNY Mediation Panel.”

We fully expect the non-participating Judges within the SDNY, and other courts across the country, will be monitoring the effectiveness of the pilot program as well as the EDNY’s efforts to foster early mediation in FLSA cases.  If the program is successful, and the pace of new case filings remains high, other Districts may implement similar procedures.

Agree to Arbitrate Representative Issues Much?

Posted in Arbitration Agreements, State Laws/Claims

Authored by Simon L. Yang

Seyfarth Synopsis: When the California Supreme Court said no to PAGA waivers in its 2014 Iskanian ruling, we asked whether employers would boldly go where few have gone before and implement arbitration agreements requiring arbitration of PAGA claims. A recent California Court of Appeal decision issued in Perez v. U-Haul Company of California warrants revisiting that question.

Many employers stayed the course in 2014 and continued including PAGA waivers within their arbitration agreements, since numerous federal district courts continued disagreeing with and refusing to apply Iskanian’s logic.

And even when in 2015 the Ninth Circuit instructed federal district courts to apply Iskanian, many employers continued using arbitration agreements with PAGA waivers, since PAGA litigation could be severed and stayed while a plaintiff’s individual claims were arbitrated. If the employer prevailed on the individual claims in arbitration, the plaintiff would not be an aggrieved employee, would not have standing under PAGA, and would thus be unable to pursue mooted PAGA claims.

By 2016 plaintiffs have made the availability of that option scarcer. To avoid having to prove standing by prevailing on their individual claims before pursuing otherwise stayed PAGA claims, plaintiffs now commonly prefer to file PAGA-only lawsuits, without alleging individual claims.

The two putative Perez class representatives, however, had pursued both individual and PAGA claims. Predicting and seeking to avoid a stay of their PAGA claims, the Perez plaintiffs hopped onto the PAGA-only bandwagon by amending their complaints to allege a PAGA cause of action only—abandoning their individual claims, their roles as potential class representatives, and putative class members’ individual rights.

U-Haul fought back and sought to require arbitration of the predicate issue of whether the plaintiffs themselves had been subject to any Labor Code violations. Even though U-Haul was not seeking to preclude the PAGA cause of action but only to arbitrate the individual issues determinative of plaintiffs’ standing for their PAGA claims, the Court of Appeal rejected U-Haul’s argument. It reasoned that no individual issues remained at issue and that U-Haul’s arbitration agreement explicitly precluded arbitration of any representative issues.

Though Iskanian explicitly acknowledged that PAGA claims might be arbitrated, the Perez court then went full dictum. It opined that even if U-Haul’s arbitration agreement did not preclude its argument for arbitrating the plaintiff-specific issues determinative of PAGA standing, the PAGA cause of action could not be split between arbitration and litigation. But Iskanian doesn’t preclude this. What it precluded was the waiver of the right to pursue PAGA claims at all.

While it may be the case that an arbitration agreement cannot specify that an individual claim be created in a PAGA-only lawsuit, an arbitration agreement should be able to specify that representative claims be arbitrated—and specify that streamlined procedures be applied. Once again, will some enterprising employers consider going boldly where few have gone before?

The 16th Edition of Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class Actions Is Here!

Posted in State Laws/Claims

Authored by Christopher A. Crosman

We are excited to announce the 16th edition of Seyfarth Shaw’s publication Litigating California Wage & Hour and Labor Code Class ActionsAs in previous editions, this publication reviews the most commonly filed wage and hour and Labor Code class and representative claims and the development of the law over the last several years, and discusses and analyzes the various types of wage & hour class actions that affect many California employers. This new edition has been updated to reflect the latest developments in the law and promises to delight.

Download the publication using this convenient link today!

Employers Should Not Retreat on Compliance Planning Despite Two-Pronged Attack on OT Rule

Posted in DOL Enforcement, Misclassification/Exemptions

Authored by Alex Passantino

Seyfarth Synopsis: Two lawsuits related to the Department of Labor’s revisions to the white-collar exemptions have been filed in East Texas.

The first lawsuit, citing (among other things) the severe impact the impending salary increase will have on state and local government budgets, was filed by the Attorneys General of Nevada, Texas, and 19 other states (the “State AG case”). The State AG case makes a Tenth Amendment-based challenge to Congressional application of the FLSA to states. It also argues that the DOL exceeded Congressional authority with respect to the salary test, the highly-compensated employee exemption level, and indexing. The State AG case also argues that the DOL failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act and/or that the Department exceeded its Congressional delegation of authority.

The second lawsuit was filed by a broad coalition of Texas and national business groups and trade associations. This case alleges that the DOL exceeded its statutory authority under the FLSA, both by the dramatic increase in the minimum salary level required for exemption and by the provision that would require automatic updating of that level every three years.

Both cases seek a variety of declarations regarding the unlawfulness of the DOL’s actions, as well as temporary and permanent injunctive relief preventing the rule from becoming effective on December 1, 2016.

The filing of these cases, as well as recent efforts in Congress to stop the rule (or at least to revise it), may tempt some employers into taking their foot off the pedal with respect to ensuring compliance with the new salary level by December 1. As many have learned the hard way, however, legislation and litigation are less-than-certain solutions.

Employers should continue their efforts to be compliant by December 1. If we receive legislative or judicial relief at some point, it will be much easier to stop the process than it would be to start it much closer to the effective date. In other words, Congressional or judicial relief should not be your compliance strategy.

We will, of course, continue to keep you updated on the litigation and legislative efforts. In the meantime, keep your eyes on the December 1 deadline.