Co-authored by Alex Passantino and Kevin Young

On Tuesday, the Wage & Hour Division announced a new program for resolving violations of the FLSA without the need for litigation. The Payroll Audit Independent Determination program—or “PAID”—is intended to facilitate the efficient resolution of overtime and minimum wage claims under the FLSA. The program will be conducted for a six-month pilot period, after which time WHD will review the results and determine how best to proceed.

PAID should be welcome news for compliance-minded employers. In the vast majority of cases, FLSA claims must be resolved through litigation or under WHD’s supervision. Given the proliferation of FLSA litigation, many employers have, in recent years, conducted proactive audits with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the Act. Oftentimes, employers who identified past issues through those efforts were reluctant to approach an enforcement-happy WHD to request supervision of back wage payments due to concern that doing so would trigger litigation. Employers were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

By providing a mechanism for proactively resolving wage-hour issues without the need for litigation, the PAID program should increase the incentive for employers to conduct formal audits of their wage-hour practices.

While we expect details on the PAID program, including an official launch date, to crystallize in the weeks to come, the WHD has already provided guidance on the contours of the program. According to WHD, an eligible employer who wishes to participate in the program must:

  • Specifically identify the potential violations,
  • Identify which employees were affected,
  • Identify the timeframes in which each employee was affected, and
  • Calculate the amount of back wages the employer believes are owed to each employee.

The employer must then contact WHD to discuss the issue(s) for which it seeks resolution. Following that discussion, WHD will inform the employer of the manner in which the employer must provide required information, including:

  • Each of the calculations described above—accompanied by evidence and explanation;
  • A concise explanation of the scope of the potential violations for possible inclusion in a release of liability;
  • A certification that the employer reviewed all of the information, terms, and compliance assistance materials;
  • A certification that the employer is not litigating the compensation practices at issue in court, arbitration, or otherwise, and likewise has not received any communications from an employee’s representative or counsel expressing interest in litigating or settling the same issues; and
  • A certification that the employer will adjust its practices to avoid the same potential violations in the future.

At the conclusion of the process, the employer must make back wage payments. That process may look similar to the end of a WHD investigation in which violations are found. If an employee accepts the back wages, she will waive her rights to a private cause of action under the FLSA for the identified issues and timeframe. An employee who chooses not to accept the back wages will not be impacted.

We will share more as additional information becomes available. If you have any questions about the PAID program, the planning or execution of a proactive wage-hour audit, or any related issues, please do not hesitate to contact us.

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

Seyfarth Synopsis: Governor Andrew Cuomo has directed the Commissioner of Labor to schedule public hearings to address the possibility of eliminating the tip credit. A tip credit allows an employer to pay less than minimum wage to employees who receive the bulk of their pay in customer tips.

As we say goodbye to 2017, New York employers should also start preparing to say goodbye to minimum wage tip credits.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has directed the Commissioner of Labor to schedule public hearings to address the possibility of eliminating the tip credit. A tip credit allows an employer to pay less than minimum wage to employees who receive the bulk of their pay in customer tips.

As we reported in 2015, the then-Commissioner issued a report questioning the continuation of the minimum wage tip credit. Governor Cuomo appears to be in favor of the elimination of tip credits; he called for the public hearings “to ensure that no workers are more susceptible to exploitation because they rely on tips to survive.” While the Governor has not made any specific proposal, it is likely that, even if the tip credit goes away, employees could still be tipped, and participate in tip pooling/sharing arrangements, but they would have to be paid at least the standard minimum wage that non-tipped employees receive.

As with the minimum wage for all employees across the state, the minimum wage for tipped employees across the state is set to increase on December 31. The Department of Labor has summarized the revisions applicable to the tipped minimum wage for hospitality employers, employers in “miscellaneous industries,” and employers in the “building service industry.” Employers should consult these summaries to determine how much they can deduct for the appropriate minimum wage tip credit as the amount varies based on the industry, job classification, location of the employee and size of the employer.

Authored By Alex Passantino

As we’ve reported previously, among the items the Department of Labor identified earlier this year in its Regulatory Agenda was a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking to rescind portions of a 2011 rule that restricted tip pooling for employers who do not use the tip credit to satisfy their minimum wage obligations. On October 24, 2017, that NPRM was sent to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review and approval. One of the cases challenging the validity of the 2011 rulemaking may be on its way to the Supreme Court, with the Administration’s response to a cert petition due on November 7. With that deadline looming, it’s possible that the Administration is seeking to moot the issue before the Supreme Court has the chance to address some of the issues related to agency deference.

After OIRA clears the NPRM, it will be sent to the Federal Register for the public to provide comments in response to the Department’s proposal. At that time, we’ll know the specifics of the proposal and will be able to provide more guidance on what this means for employers. Stay tuned.

 

Co-authored by Brett Bartlett, Alex Passantino, and Kevin Young

Seyfarth Synopsis: On Thursday afternoon, a federal judge in Texas issued an order officially invalidating the U.S. Department of Labor’s 2016 overtime rule, which would have more than doubled the minimum salary level for most overtime-exempt employees. While the long awaited ruling brings a measure of closure for employers, the possibility of appeal, as well as the new administration’s efforts to revise the existing overtime exemption rules, will be critical issues for employers watch in the weeks and months to come.

For nearly a year, employers have been watching and waiting as litigation challenging the Obama administration’s revision to the FLSA’s executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions—a revision intended to make millions of more Americans eligible for overtime pay—wound its way through litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit of Appeals. As of Thursday afternoon, the waiting is over: District Judge Amos Mazzant issued an order invalidating the revised rule.

The Obama DOL’s revised rule, which was finalized in the summer of 2016 and slated to take effect on December 1, 2016, would have increased the salary level required for EAP employees from $455 per week (i.e., $23,660 per year) to $913 per week (i.e., $47,476 per year). The rule also called for automatic, inflation-indexed updates to the salary level every three years. Ultimately, the revised rule did not become effective on December 1, however, because Judge Mazzant issued an order days prior that preliminarily enjoined it from going into effect.

District Judge Mazzant issued his order in two consolidated lawsuits challenging the DOL for acting beyond its rulemaking authority. The order was the result of a motion filed by a group of state attorneys general who argued that the DOL’s rulemaking was invalid, in part because it exceeded the authority Congress gave DOL to define who is a “bona fide” EAP employee who should not be entitled to overtime pay. At about the same time that the “state plaintiffs” filed their motion for preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, another set of plaintiffs—a group of business associations (“business plaintiffs”)—filed an expedited motion for summary judgment, advancing similar arguments that the DOL’s rulemaking was unlawful.

After Judge Mazzant granted the state plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, the Obama DOL filed an interlocutory appeal in the Fifth Circuit attacking the injunction order. Importantly, however, this was just before the Trump Administration took office. Ultimately, briefing in the appeal was delayed as a new president settled into office and his new Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta, took the helm at DOL. In doing so, Secretary Acosta and his Acting Solicitor were required to assess how to maneuver a proceeding involving an injunction order that on the one hand blocked the implementation of an overtime rule championed by the prior administration, but on the other hand suggested that the DOL might not have authority to set any salary level for the EAP exemptions, despite having done so for nearly eighty years.

In the meantime, the business plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment lingered before the district court.

Thursday’s ruling was preceded by a recent flurry of activity. On Wednesday, for example, Judge Mazzant issued an order confirming no further argument was necessary on the summary judgment motion. The court also collapsed the state plaintiffs’ and business plaintiffs’ cases together and joined the state plaintiffs to the business plaintiffs’ pending summary judgment motion. Nevertheless, it seemed unlikely that Judge Mazzant would rule on the summary judgment motion before hearing from the Fifth Circuit regarding his earlier preliminary injunction order. After all, an appellate ruling on whether it was proper to preliminarily enjoin the new rule certainly could have impacted or at least informed Judge Mazzant’s reasoning on whether the rule should be declared invalid, as the summary judgment motion argued it should.

Meanwhile, at the Fifth Circuit, oral argument was slated for October 3, and the parties were jockeying for an opportunity to be heard. The business plaintiffs, who were not parties to the appeal, requested permission to appear as amici at the oral argument. Soon thereafter, all parties filed a motion to stay proceedings while they attempted to negotiate a deal that would eliminate the need for further proceedings. Indeed, even on Thursday as the district court was issuing its final judgment, the parties on appeal were filing various submissions with the Fifth Circuit.

So perhaps all were surprised when District Judge Mazzant issued orders finding that the DOL’s 2016 rulemaking was invalid, and that the AFL-CIO would not be joined to the case. The district court’s ruling on both of these issues is fairly straightforward. On the motion for summary judgment, which collapsed all parties and remaining issues into its walls, the court ruled as follows:

  • As associations and similar groups, the business plaintiffs had standing to challenge the DOL’s rulemaking.
  • The FLSA does in fact apply to state governments, contrary to the state plaintiffs’ arguments.
  • Applying Chevron deference analysis, the DOL exceeded its authority by setting a salary level test that in effect eliminated the need to consider whether employees performed duties that demonstrate their roles working in a bona fide EAP capacity, based on definitions that Congress would have understood at the time it enacted the FLSA.
  • The automatic updating provided by the DOL’s final 2016 rule was unlawful for similar reasons.
  • Clarifying an area of concern for the DOL and other stakeholders, the court did not rule on the question of whether the DOL has authority to set any salary level for the EAP exemptions. The court’s ruling concerned only the 2016 rulemaking, finding the heightened salary level under the revised rule goes too far.

In denying the AFL-CIO’s motion to intervene as a necessary or permissive party, the court reasoned:

  • The union’s motion was untimely, as it had been aware of the litigation and the issues on which it bore. Yet it waited to file its motion to intervene until material events had occurred in the litigation.
  • The union failed to show that the DOL and related defendants were not adequately representing the interests that it purported to protect.
  • The union had argued among its primary points that Secretary of Labor nominee Andrew Puzder would not protect those interests; but Alexander Acosta was confirmed as Secretary of Labor, meaning that Mr. Puzder’s potential actions never became a reality.
  • And the court would nevertheless not exercise its discretion to allow the union to join the case.

The question on everyone’s mind is: where does this leave us?

One easy answer is that with respect to the EAP exemption itself, the 2004 rule remains in place. Employees making $455 per week (i.e., $23,660 per year) and whose primary duty satisfies one of the EAP duties tests may be classified as exempt.

Beyond that, there are no easy answers. The parties are no doubt considering whether the district court’s summary judgment order, which purports to withdraw all prior rulings, renders the pending appeal moot or requires its dismissal. After all, the summary judgment motion decided by the district court presents largely the same issues currently before the Fifth Circuit—namely, the validity of the new overtime rule. Some commentators have already exclaimed that the district court’s order mooted the interlocutory appeal entirely. Our view is that the question could be more complicated. Suffice it to say, there’s a lot to digest.

Either way, it also remains unclear whether either side will appeal Thursday’s rulings. While one would assume that DOL will not, we can’t slam the door on the possibility. As we saw with the appeal of the preliminary injunction, even the new Administration’s policy differences may not override DOL’s desire to defend itself against court orders limiting its authority, as the preliminary injunction did and as the court’s summary judgment order appears to do. If DOL determines that there is an institutional need to preserve its rulemaking authority, then it is possible we might see a DOL-initiated appeal, which would further complicate the question of how the union might agitate the proceedings.

As for the AFL-CIO, next steps are even foggier at this moment. Given that the DOL has already signaled the commencement of new rulemaking on the EAP exemptions, the AFL-CIO may take the view that even a complete victory on appeal—i.e., one that would permit its inclusion in the case and the reversal of the district court’s summary judgment decision—would ring hollow, as it could be undone by the DOL’s efforts to formulate a new rule that would take the place of the Obama rule.

Without question, the Eastern District of Texas’s order invalidating the 2016 overtime rule brings a large measure of closure for employers waiting to learn whether the rule would ever go into effect. The completeness and finality of that closure will depend largely on whether the AFL-CIO seeks appeal, as well as the DOL’s anticipated efforts to implement a new rule altogether. We will, of course, continue to monitor and update you on these important events.

Authored by Alex Passantino

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Wage & Hour Division announced its regulatory plan for the next year and it is less ambitious than some may have anticipated.  A request for information on the overtime rule and a proposal to rescind a limited tip credit regulation are all that is on the immediate horizon for employers.

Each spring and fall, Washington waits with bated breath as the Executive Branch releases its regulatory agenda. As the first pronouncement of some of the specifics of the Trump Administration’s regulatory plans, this year’s agenda was anticipated more than most. And now we have it

The Wage and Hour Division’s initial plans include the announced Request for Information on the white collar exemptions, which is expected to be published this month. An as-of-yet-unannounced action, however, is a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would rescind aspects of the Department’s 2011 rule related to tipped employees. Specifically, the NPRM would seek comment on the Department’s proposal to rescind the portion of the rule that restricts tip pooling for employers who do not use the tip credit to satisfy their minimum wage obligations. That rule has been the subject of much litigation, with mixed results. One of the cases may be on its way to the Supreme Court, with the Administration’s response to a cert petition due on September 8. With the NPRM slated for an August publication, it’s possible that the Administration may be seeking to avoid review by the Supreme Court on some of the touchier issues related to the proper deference a federal agency should be afforded. We’ll keep you posted.

Finally, WHD has identified a long-term plan to revisit the Section 14(c) program. Section 14(c) of the FLSA permits, under certain circumstances, employment of individuals with disabilities at subminimum wages. It is a politically sensitive program, and one in need of updating. No timetable has been provided for the Department’s review.

Co-authored by Brett Bartlett, Alex Passantino, and Kevin Young

At last, the federal government has filed its reply brief in the Fifth Circuit concerning its appeal from a Texas district court’s order preliminarily enjoining the 2016 revisions to the FLSA’s executive, administrative, and professional exemptions. Because of the substantive and procedural complexities facing the Department of Labor (and its newly seated Secretary, Alex Acosta), we would not have been surprised to see another request for more time to file this reply—though given the number of prior extensions, there was reason to wonder whether the Fifth Circuit would grant such a request.

The complexities, in a nutshell, revolved around several points:

  1. The fact that the lower court that issued the preliminary injunction justified its order, in part, with reasoning that would suggest that the DOL does not have and has never had the authority to set a salary level test for the EAP exemptions.
  2. Although the new Secretary of Labor and the Trump administration might not want the 2016 revisions to become effective with the $913/week salary level requirement, it would be difficult to argue against the revisions without supporting the lower court’s rescission of DOL rulemaking authority.
  3. If the DOL argued against the preliminary injunction (i.e., for its reversal), the Fifth Circuit might order that the 2016 revisions become effective, whether retrospectively or at some point in the future, in connection with a holding that the district court’s order was entirely unsalvageable.

Tough stuff. And we now know the DOL made a hard choice. The Department chose to argue that it absolutely has, and always has had, the authority to set a salary level test—it chose to argue that the lower court erred in enjoining the revised exemptions from going into effect.

The DOL’s argument is more nuanced than that, however. In the simplest of terms, it attempts to walk a tight line by urging the Fifth Circuit to find that the lower court erred by concluding that the DOL did not have the authority to set a salary level test at all, but to stop short of finding that the 2016 revisions are valid as written. Somewhat subtly, the DOL suggests that the appellate court should bless the Department’s ability to reconsider what the appropriate salary level should be. Here is what the DOL writes about that:

The district court did not determine whether the salary level set by the 2016 final rule is arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by the administrative record. Because the preliminary injunction rested on the legal conclusion that the Department lacks authority to set a salary level, it may be reversed on the ground that that legal ruling was erroneous. The Department has decided not to advocate for the specific salary level ($913 per week) set in the final rule at this time and intends to undertake further rulemaking to determine what the salary level should be. Accordingly, the Department requests that this Court address only the threshold legal question of the Department’s statutory authority to set a salary level, without addressing the specific salary level set by the 2016 final rule. In light of this litigation contesting the Department’s authority to establish any salary level test, the Department has decided not to proceed immediately with issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking to address the appropriate salary level. The rulemaking process imposes significant burdens on both the promulgating agency and the public, and the Department is reluctant to issue a proposal predicated on its authority to establish a salary level test while this litigation remains pending. Instead, the Department soon will publish a request for information seeking public input on several questions that will aid in the development of a proposal.

So where does this leave us? It is hard to predict what the Fifth Circuit will do with these arguments. The appellate court might hold oral argument. It doesn’t have to. We do not know, at this time, who the judges would be to hear the appeal. We cannot read the tea leaves based on the personal tendencies of the jurists, as a result. The court might find that the parties have provided sufficient information to allow an order based on the briefing alone. Even if it were to do that, we’d be looking at months, most likely, before we see a ruling.

And what then? The appeals court might find, as noted above, that the lower court’s order cannot stand in any way. That would create a chain of events that we all would hope to avoid. The court might, however, do as the DOL asks, reversing the preliminary injunction and giving instructions to the trial court about how to proceed. Perhaps that would open the door to some sort of compromise, which would bring its own complexities and challenges.

What is certain at this time is that the future of the 2016 revisions remains uncertain.

We will continue to monitor the situation.

iStock-649373572Authored by Katherine M. Smallwood

Seyfarth Synopsis: On May 8, 2017, Governor Nathan Deal signed a law expanding the reach of a pre-existing statute that prohibits Georgia localities from passing ordinances affecting worker pay in Georgia. The amendment is in line with a trend of states’ laws proactively limiting counties’ and cities’ abilities to promulgate ordinances that exceed worker protections that state and federal laws provide.

House Bill 243, authored by Representative Bill Werkheiser (R – Glennville), amends the Georgia Minimum Wage Law to preempt any local government rules requiring additional pay to employees based on schedule changes. The Georgia Minimum Wage Law already prohibited local governments, such as counties, municipal corporations, and consolidated governments, from adopting mandates requiring an employer to pay any employee a wage rate or provide employment benefits not otherwise required under state or federal law.

Prior to the adoption of House Bill 243, the Georgia Minimum Wage Law defined “employment benefits” to mean “anything of value that an employee may receive from an employer in addition to wages and salary,” including but not limited to, “any health benefits; disability benefits; death benefits; group accidental death and dismemberment benefits; paid days off for holidays, sick leave, vacation, and personal necessity; retirement benefits; and profit-sharing benefits.” House Bill 243 amends the definition of “employment benefits” to include “additional pay based on schedule changes.”

According to the National Federation of Independent Business, House Bill 243 benefits employers by protecting them from predictive scheduling requirements, which are intended to require employers to set employees’ work schedules in advance and pay an employee for lost or adjusted time if the schedule changes after the employer initially sets it. Proponents of the Bill argued that members of the food, service, and retail industries rely heavily on scheduling flexibility to serve their customers, and that these business realities justified the Bill’s protection from predictive scheduling requirements that localities might promulgate if it were not passed into law.

The Georgia Minimum Wage Law and this new amendment to it are part of the larger wave of so-called preemption bills, which seek to preclude localities from enacting ordinances that impose additional obligations on employers operating within their boundaries. Numerous states, including South Carolina, Minnesota, Tennessee, Missouri, and Arkansas, have either passed or considered similar preemption laws. While the laws in these several states (each of which is generally perceived to be business-friendly) should provide some solace to employers on the lookout for business-impacting local laws, they also highlight the need for caution in states whose legislatures are less willing to restrict cities’ and counties’ from passing worker protection laws.

Co-authored by Brett C. Bartlett and Samuel Sverdlov

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Southern District of New York recently held that parties may not settle FLSA claims without court approval through an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background: Rule 68

Under Rule 68, a party defending a claim can make an “offer of judgment” to the other party. If the other party accepts the offer, the clerk must enter judgment pursuant to the offer’s terms. However, if the offered party rejects the offer and obtains a less favorable judgment at trial, that party must then pay the costs incurred by the offering party after the offer was made. Courts have explained that the purpose of Rule 68 is to prompt parties to evaluate the risks and costs of litigation and to balance those risks against the likelihood of success.

Cheeks Decision

As we have previously discussed, in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a landmark decision of the Second Circuit, the court held that absent approval by either the district court or the DOL, parties “cannot” settle FLSA claims with prejudice. The Cheeks decision has made it increasingly difficult for parties to reach a settlement of FLSA claims in the Second Circuit, and accordingly, litigants have increasingly tried to avoid the requirement for judicial or DOL approval by entering into settlements pursuant to Rule 68.

Recent SDNY Decision

In the recent case of Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc., et al., the parties attempted to do just this — bypass judicial scrutiny of an FLSA settlement by settling their claims pursuant to a Rule 68 offer of judgment. The parties in Hasaki argued that the language of Rule 68 provides that the clerk “must” enter judgment of an accepted offer of judgment. The SDNY, however, held “that parties may not circumvent judicial scrutiny of an FLSA settlement via Rule 68.” Judge Furman reasoned that FLSA settlements are ripe for abuse by defendant employers, and that there are a number of scenarios where a settlement must pass judicial scrutiny, even where there is a Rule 68 offer of judgment. For instance, among other examples, judicial scrutiny is required in qui tam actions under the False Claims Act, settlements on behalf of a minor, and in cases where injunctive relief is sought.

The majority of district courts in the Second Circuit disagree with Judge Furman, and have held that Rule 68 offers of judgment in FLSA cases do not need to undergo judicial scrutiny. Given the split in authority on this issue within the Second Circuit, Judge Furman certified the decision for interlocutory appeal, noting an immediate appeal would “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Further, the court held that “resolution [of this issue] by the Second Circuit is plainly desirable, if not necessary.”

Outlook for Employers

Until there is resolution of this issue, employers in the Second Circuit should carefully consider whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment in an FLSA case is worth the risk that the district court would nonetheless require scrutiny of the settlement. Given that Hasaki has been certified for appeal to the Second Circuit, we hope to have clarity on whether settlement of an FLSA case pursuant to Rule 68 requires judicial approval.

Co-authored by Kyle A. Petersen and Molly C. Mooney

Seyfarth Synopsis: If Congress fails to pass a long-term funding bill, we could be facing a federal government shutdown with no money flowing to fund non-essential services. While it seems the crisis may be averted for now — with a short-term spending bill that would keep the lights on for another week — the potential for a shutdown still looms.  And with it comes concern for many private-sector employers with federal contracts.  If the money dries up, employers may need to consider cost-saving measures, such as temporary furloughs, reductions in hours, or reduced pay.

If Congress fails to pass a funding bill and the government shuts down, employers may need to consider cost-saving measures. Employers should bear in mind the potential wage and hour implications when implementing these changes.

  • Non-Exempt Employees: Reductions in Hours and Hourly Rate. Because non-exempt employees do not need to be paid for time when they are not working, employers can reduce their scheduled hours, as well as their hourly pay without implicating wage and hour laws. Such changes should be prospective and, of course, the hourly pay must still satisfy the federal and state minimum wage. When reducing rates of pay, it is important to check state law on how far in advance you must tell an employee their hourly rate is going down. It is also important to continue paying workers on time.
  • Exempt Employees: Full-Week Reductions in Hours and Salary. Frequent readers of this blog should know that exempt employees are subject to the salary basis test, which means that they generally must be paid the same minimum weekly salary regardless of how many or few hours they work each week. (Federal law currently requires a minimum weekly salary of $455). Reductions in that weekly salary could jeopardize the employee’s exempt status. This means that employers cannot subject exempt employees to partial week furloughs. Full-week furloughs are OK, so long as the employee performs no work during the week. And, yes, that includes abstaining from responding to email, taking phone calls, and other activities that could constitute hours worked.  Given that many employees are constantly “plugged in,” ensuring compliance with this requirement is essential yet challenging.
  • Exempt Employees: Partial-Week Reductions in Hours and Salary. As you might have surmised by now, partial-week reductions in salary are generally not permitted without risking an employee’s exemption. For example, employers generally cannot pay exempt employees 80% of their salary for working four-day workweeks instead of five at the employer’s request. A narrow and delicate exception to this rule is that employers can implement a fixed reduction in future salaries and base hours due to a bona fide reduction in the amount of work. While the FLSA and federal regulations do not specifically address furloughs, the Department of Labor’s opinion letters and courts have (almost) unanimously concluded that employers may make prospective decreases in salary that correspond to reduced workweeks, so long as the practice is occasional and due to long-term business needs or economic slowdown. How frequently an employer can furlough its exempt employees is not settled, but federal courts have held that salary reductions twice per year are infrequent enough to be bona fide.

Once the budget crisis passes and employees return to work, caution is still warranted in returning furloughed employees to work.  As always, when dealing with these issues, be sure to contact your wage and hour counsel.

Authored by Sheryl Skibbe

On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Justice Department’s additional unopposed request for a 60-day extension to figure out its position on the new FLSA overtime exemption rules.

The stated reason for the government’s unopposed request was to “allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.” Nevada v. DOL, No. 16-41606, Motion For Extension to File Reply (Feb. 17, 2017).

Presumably, the request for additional time is to permit the Senate to confirm the Trump administration’s new Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta, and let him weigh in on the new rules. But the extension runs only to May 1, and it is not clear that the Senate could confirm Mr. Acosta and permit him to guide the government’s position by this new deadline.

Meanwhile, the district court in Texas is still considering the business groups’ motion for summary judgment to permanently invalidate the new rules and the Texas AFL-CIO’s motion to intervene in the case. A decision granting the summary judgment motion could moot the appeal if the district court enters a permanent injunction before the Fifth Circuit rules.