Brunini Law

U.S. Department of Labor Releases Model Posting for Families First Coronavirus Response Act

by

On Wednesday, March 25, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released the first version of the required notice posting that is required as part of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).  You can find the current version of this poster by going to this DOL website: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/posters/FFCRA_Poster_WH1422_Non-Federal.pdf.  While the DOL did not indicate the date by which employers would need to post this notice poster, covered employers are advised to post it by at least April 1, 2020, the effective date of the FFCRA.  Each “covered employer”—those with 500 or less employees—must post this notice of the FFCRA requirements in “a conspicuous place on its premises of the employer where notices to employees are customarily posted.”  An employer may also satisfy this requirement by emailing (or directly mailing) the notice to its employees.  An employer may also post this notice on an employee information website (such as an intranet).

At this time, Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group suggests that employers wait to print out and post this material until March 31, 2020, as the DOL may issue an updated version.  If such an update is provided, the DOL should post the update in this location.

Related Attorneys

U.S. Department of Labor Issues First Guidance Concerning Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

by

On Wednesday, March 18, 2020, President Trump officially signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) into law.  The text of the FFCRA provided broad details concerning its two principal mandates: (1) new, paid sick leave rights for workers impacted by COVID-19 and those serving as caregivers for others with COVID-19; and (2) new, enhanced leave entitlements under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), including limited paid leave rights.  However, Congress failed to address many of the details concerning the implementation of the FFCRA, instead deferring to the Secretary of Labor.

On Tuesday, March 24, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a series of guidance attempting to answer preliminary questions concerning the mechanics of the FFCRA.  Specifically, the DOL issued a General Question and Answer page, along with Fact Sheets for Employers and Employees.  The DOL also stated it also will be issuing implementing regulations regarding the new law in the near future, as well as additional guidance.  Of note, the DOL indicated that the FFCRA will officially go into effect on Wednesday, April 1, 2020—not on April 2nd as originally expected.

While circumstances remain fluid, we will continue to monitor further proposed legislation and its potential impact on our clients.

Related Attorneys

Internal Revenue Service & Department of Labor Issue New Guidance on Employer Tax Credits under Families First Coronavirus Response Act

by

As previously reported, President Trump signed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) into law on Wednesday, March 18, 2020.  Among its provisions, the FFCRA set out several key mandates that impact employers, including:

  • New, separate paid sick leave rights for employees impacted by COVID-19 and those serving as caregivers for individuals with COVID-19; and
  • New, enhanced leave entitlements under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), including paid leave under FMLA.

Since its passage, employers covered by the FFCRA—those with 500 employees or less—have expressed concerns with the FFCRA, ranging from interpretation of its exemption to financing of the new mandates.

Under the FFCRA, employers are entitled to reimbursement for up to 100% of the cost of wages for such leave, including health insurance costs in the form of payroll tax credits. The credits max out at $511 per day for employees who unable to work because they are in Coronavirus quarantine or self-quarantine or have Coronavirus symptoms and are seeking diagnosis and at $200 per day for employees who are caring for someone with Coronavirus or is caring for a child because the child’s school or child care facility is closed or provider is unavailable due to the Coronavirus.   An additional credit is available for health insurance costs for such affected employees during the time they are on leave from work.

Over the past few days, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) each issued administrative guidance concerning the mechanics of the tax credits for small and midsized businesses to help cover the cost of providing COVID-19 related paid leave to employees. The highlights include:

  • Employers may keep, rather than deposit, the payroll taxes due in an amount equal to the employer’s cost of qualifying sick and childcare leave paid.
  • The federal government is offering a way to shorten the waiting time for employers to receive the payroll tax refund. A new refund request form is coming soon that may be filed immediately to cover employer costs of qualified sick or childcare leave if the costs exceed payroll withholdings due. Refunds should be processed within 2 weeks.
  • 30-day non-enforcement period for good faith compliance efforts.

The IRS and DOL plan to release additional information on the process for employers to receive an advance payment for the credit.  While circumstances remain fluid, we will continue to monitor further proposed legislation and its potential effects on employers.

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20200320

Related Attorneys

CORONAVIRUS AND THE INTERRUPTION OF YOUR BUSINESS

by

As rapidly as the coronavirus is spreading its footprint across the globe, businesses of all shapes and sizes are closing their doors … and losing income.  Unfortunately, Mississippi businesses are not exempt from this fast moving reality.  Indeed, coffee shops, boutiques, restaurants, office complexes, and a variety of other businesses across the State have been forced to drastically change their operations or, in some cases, completely shutter their businesses in response to the coronavirus pandemic and the related government directives concerning travel and social distancing.  As a result, many companies are already reporting lost profits, as well as a significant concern about the future of their businesses.

Fortunately, most companies carry a commercial property insurance policy, which typically includes not only coverage for property damage but also coverage for lost profits incurred as a result of damage to the covered property.  In other words, a business may have coverage for its coronavirus lost profits through its commercial property policy.  To know that, an insured should first review its policy to determine if it contains any of the following types of coverages which are frequently included in a commercial property policy.

Business Income/Interruption 

Business Income/Interruption Coverage provides coverage for the loss of income an insured sustains as a result of a suspension of an insured’s operations.  However, most policies require that the suspension stem from “direct physical loss or damage” caused by a “covered peril” (typically theft, fire, wind, falling objects or lightning) to the specific covered property.  This type of coverage is most commonly found in circumstances where an insured’s covered property is damaged by a fire, or perhaps a storm, forcing the insured to suspend its operations for a period of time.  In that scenario, the fire or storm damage to the subject property would be readily apparent, and assuming it is a covered peril, the claimant would have a strong claim for the income lost during the restoration period.  However, a claim for lost income as a result of the coronavirus will be much more complex.

First, an insured will need to demonstrate “direct physical loss or damage” to its covered property.  Given the nature of the coronavirus, however, there likely will be no apparent damage to the property.  So, insureds will likely contend that, regardless of its visibility or lack thereof, the virus is within their workplace – albeit at a microscopic level – and that it is has in fact damaged their covered property.

Courts have heard similar arguments in other contexts (e.g. asbestos, gasoline fumes, etc.) and reached varying conclusions.  Some have sided with the insureds that the contaminant damaged the property, while others agreed with the insurers that the contaminant had not damaged the insured’s property.  This determination, which will involve a detailed analysis of the relevant policy and applicable law, will be the critical issue in evaluating these claims for coverage.

Next, an insured should review its policy to determine if it excludes coverage for business interruption claims based on communicable diseases.  Due to the SARS outbreak in 2003, the insurance industry purportedly paid out a significant amount of claims based on “business interruptions” caused by SARS.  After the SARS outbreak, and to avoid a repeat, the insurance industry began excluding losses incurred by communicable disease.  Perhaps most importantly, in 2006, the heavily relied upon Insurance Services Office (ISO) issued form CP 01 40 07 06 excluding “loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium, or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.”  Determining whether the insured’s policy contains this exclusion will be a critical component of any coverage analysis.

Contingent Business Interruption

Commercial property policies routinely include coverage for disruptions in an insured’s supply chain.  This coverage applies when damage occurs not to the insured’s property but to the property of others relied on by the insured to supply materials to the insured or its customers.  Again, it is important to note that these policies usually require damage or physical loss caused by a covered peril to the supplier’s property.  As with the Business Income/Interruption claim, the specific language of the policy will be critical in this analysis.

Order of Civil Authority

Many commercial property insurance policies provide coverage for business income losses sustained when a “civil authority” prohibits or impairs access to the policyholder’s premises.  Some of these policies do not require “physical loss” to the insured’s covered property, and those that do sometimes do not require that the physical loss occur to the insured’s own property.  Thus, if a governmental authority – federal, state, or local – prohibits or even limits access to an area including an insured’s business, the insured may have coverage for its loss of income under its “civil authority” coverage.  Yet again, analysis of the specific language in the policy and applicable law will be critical in determining coverage.

The First Coronavirus Coverage Case

On March 16, 2020, Oceana Grill in New Orleans, Louisiana filed what is thought to be the first lawsuit – of many more to come – dealing with a coronavirus business interruption coverage dispute (Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana).

In its Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Oceana Grill requested a declaration of coverage for coronavirus-caused losses under a business interruption policy.  Oceana contends that it purchased an “all risk policy” from Lloyd’s of London, “which covers all risks unless clearly and specifically excluded” and further contends that “the policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.”

With respect to harm caused by the virus, Oceana contends that:

[T]he scientific community, and those personally affected by the virus, recognize the Coronavirus as a cause of real physical loss and damage….The virus is physically impacting public and private property, and physical spaces in cities around the world….The global pandemic is exacerbated by the fact that the deadly virus physically infects and stays on the surface of objects or materials, ‘fomites,’ for up to twenty-eight days, particularly in humid areas below eighty-four degrees….It is clear that contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces of the establishment.

Oceana also pointed out that the Louisiana Governor issued a statewide order banning gatherings of 250 or more people and the New Orleans Mayor issued additional operating restrictions on businesses.

For these reasons, Oceana has asked the Court to declare that:

  1. The policy provides coverage to Plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination; and
  2. The policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured’s premises.

This will be an important case to monitor as the coronavirus crisis and resulting business interruption coverage disputes continue.

The Brunini attorneys are closely monitoring developments in the coronavirus crisis and are counseling clients through the various legal and business issues involved in the crisis.

Related Attorneys

President Trump Signs Revised Families First Coronavirus Response Act into Law

by

On Wednesday (March 18, 2020), Congress passed a revised version of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“the Act”), which President Donald Trump wasted little time signing into law.  The final version of the Act mirrored much of the original version of the legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 14, 2020, but also contained several substantive revisions.  The Act applies only to employers with fewer than 500 employees. Employers’ obligations under the Act become effective within 15 days of enactment—or on April 2, 2020—and automatically expire on December 31, 2020.

As outlined previously, the Act includes a variety of provisions, including:

  • Free COVID-19 testing
  • Multiple types of paid emergency leave
  • Enhanced unemployment insurance
  • Additional funding for nutritional programs
  • Protections for health care workers and employees responsible for cleaning at-risk places.
  • Additional federal funds for Medicaid

Among these provisions, the Act sets out several key mandates that impact employers: (1) new, separate paid sick leave rights for employees impacted by COVID-19 and those serving as caregivers for individuals with COVID-19; and (2) new, enhanced leave entitlements under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), including paid leave under FMLA.

Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act

First, the Act requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide full-time employees (regardless of how long the employee had been employed prior to the leave) with 80 hours of paid sick leave for qualifying reasons. Part-time employees receive only the number of hours they have worked over an average two (2) week period.

The Emergency Paid Sick Leave benefits are available only to employees who are absent from work for qualified, Coronavirus-related. Specifically, to qualify for the Emergency Paid Sick Leave benefits under the Act, an employee’s leave must be for one of the following purposes:

  1. The employee is subject to a government quarantine/isolation order related to Coronavirus;
  2. The employee has been advised by a health care provider to quarantine for Coronavirus concerns;
  3. The employee is experiencing symptoms of Coronavirus and seeking a medical diagnosis;
  4. The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to an order as described above or has been advised by a health care provider as described above;
  5. The employee is caring for a son or daughter if the child’s school or place of care has been closed or the child’s child care provider is unavailable due to Coronavirus precautions; or
  6. The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.

Employees who need leave to care for themselves (reasons 1-3 above) are entitled to their full regular rate of pay for the number of hours they would work per day. However, employers are now allowed to cap this amount of paid benefits at $511 per day ($5,110 aggregate) per employee. Employees who need leave to care for others—including children home from school or without childcare— (reasons 4-6 above) are entitled to only 2/3 of their regular rate of pay (or the applicable minimum wage, if greater). The amount of paid sick leave for this leave is capped at $200 per day ($2,000 aggregate) per employee.

Significantly, employers must provide these benefits in addition to any existing paid leave benefits. In other words, employees are entitled to exhaust all available emergency paid leave provided by this Act before they are required to use any otherwise available leave benefits their employer may offer.

The Act does not address employers’ right to request certification or documentation from employees in need of leave, or how the 500 employee threshold is determined. Many anticipate that the Department of Labor will issue regulations addressing these issue at a later time.

Emergency Family Medical Leave Expansion Act

The Act also significantly amends and expands FMLA on a temporary basis.  This FMLA expansion covers all employers with fewer than 500 employees—not just employers of 50 or more employees. It also lowers the eligibility threshold to employees who have worked for only 30 days (or more).  As a result, thousands of employers not previously subject to the FMLA may be required to provide job-protected leave to employees for a COVID-19 coronavirus-designated reason.

The Act now includes language allowing the Secretary of Labor to exclude “healthcare providers and emergency responders” from the definition of employees who are allowed to take such leave—although these terms themselves remain undefined.  The Act also allows the Labor Department to exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, if the required leave would jeopardize the viability of their business.

Any individual employed by the employer for at least 30 days (before the first day of leave) may take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave to allow an employee (who is unable to work or telework) to care for the employee’s child (under 18 years of age), if the child’s school or place of care is closed or the childcare provider is unavailable due to a public health emergency. Under the final version of the Act, this is now the only qualifying basis for Coronavirus-related FMLA leave, and represents a significant departure from the original version passed by the House (which contained several other COVID-19-related reasons to provide Emergency FMLA).

Employers may provide the first 10 days of this leave without pay. While employees can elect to substitute or use otherwise accrued paid leave during these initial 10 days, employers may not require employees to do so, no matter how their policies may read. Employees could elect to use their paid sick leave provided by the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (see above) for this time to be paid. After this initial 10-day period, employers must provide additional paid leave to their employees for the remaining 10 weeks, but only at two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay for the number of hours the employee would normally be scheduled to work. The amount of pay during these 10 weeks is capped at $200 per day ($10,000 aggregate) per employee.

Employees are required to give their employers “as much notice as practicable” when this type of leave is foreseeable.  Like the Emergency Paid Sick Leave portion of the Act, the FMLA Expansion does not include any reference to an employer’s right to request certification or documentation of an employee’s need for leave.  Many anticipate that the Department of Labor will issue regulations addressing these issues at a later time.

Employers must also remain aware that the Act’s paid-leave obligations are supplemental to existing federal employee leave laws. Employers are still bound by traditional FMLA, FLSA and ADA analyses for employees. For example, although an employee diagnosed with COVID-19 may not qualify for paid leave under the Act’s expanded FMLA paid leave, that same employee may have a “serious health condition” under traditional FMLA analysis, which would entitle the employee to unpaid, job-protected leave.

Lastly, employers with 25 or more employees will have the same obligation as under traditional FMLA to return any employee who has taken Emergency FMLA to the same or equivalent position upon the return to work. Conversely, employers with fewer than 25 employees are generally excluded from this requirement if the employee’s position no longer exists due to an economic downtown or other circumstances caused by a public health emergency during the period of Emergency FMLA. This exclusion is subject to the employer making reasonable attempts to return the employee to an equivalent position and requires an employer to make efforts to return the employee to work for up to a year following the employee’s leave.

Employer Tax Credits

Many small-business owners are worried about how to pay for these benefits, especially at a time when business across numerous industries has basically come to a halt. The Act aims to defray these costs for employers through a tax credit.  In order to mitigate the cost of the Paid Sick Leave mandate, the Act grants to employers a credit against their federal payroll tax obligations (the 6.2 percent tax employers pay on each employee’s salary) equal to 100% of the cost of up to 10 days of Paid Sick Leave, subject to a maximum daily rate of $511 for each employee that is directly impacted by COVID-19 or $200 per day for each employee that is caring for a family member impacted by COVID-19 or a child whose school is closed or for whom childcare is unavailable due to COVID-19.  If the amount of the allowable credit exceeds the employer’s payroll tax liability, the U.S. Government will refund the excess amount back to the employer.

Employers are also entitled to a refundable payroll tax credit for 100% of the cost of wages for Paid Family & Medical Leave subject to maximum amounts of $200 per day per employee and $10,000 in the aggregate for all calendar quarters.  In addition, employers are entitled to a credit for an allocable share of the costs of providing group health plan coverage associated with such wages.  Self-employed individuals are granted a similar refundable credit against their federal income tax liability based upon their average daily self-employment income, subject to the same $511 and $200 daily limits that apply to Paid Sick Leave.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For employers with fewer than 500 employees, the Act obviously imposes new paid-leave requirements for certain employees. Although larger employers are not bound by the legal obligations set forth in this legislation, they should become familiar with the terms of this law to assist in formulating voluntary, temporary internal policies and answering questions from employees. It is also possible that legislation impacting larger employers will follow.

Employers must view these new paid leave obligations in conjunction with existing federal, state, and local leave laws when examining their employees’ rights to protected leave. While circumstances remain fluid, we will continue to monitor further proposed legislation and its potential effects on employers.

A Message from Brunini to our Clients and Friends (COVID-19)

by

As we all work to address the growing personal and business challenges presented by COVID-19, Brunini wants to assure our clients, friends, and the public that we will continue providing top-notch legal services uninterrupted by the ongoing public health crisis.  The firm activated its business continuity policies and procedures some time ago, and we are taking every precaution possible to protect the health, safety and welfare of our clients, the entire Brunini Team and their families.  Among other protective measures:

  • Brunini lawyers and staff may work remotely and securely, as may be needed for each individuals’ circumstances, to ensure we continue to serve our clients’ legal needs without interruption;
  • Brunini has implemented enhanced cleaning efforts to protect our lawyers, staff, clients and families, and encourages safe practices and hygiene to minimize the person to person spread of the coronavirus;
  • For some time Brunini has limited non-essential travel of its lawyers and staff, and has established procedures for employees to self-monitor and self-quarantine in the event of potential exposure in high-risk areas; and
  • Brunini encourages social distancing in our practice, including promoting the use of remote meeting technology to help our lawyers and clients avoid unnecessary exposure to potential risks, and we are prepared to adjust our means of communicating as may be needed to suit clients’ specific needs and capabilities.

We recognize that our clients, friends, and the public are being impacted by this challenging public health crisis and are dealing with many difficult and novel business issues.  We are here to help with employment concerns, tax issues, insurance coverage questions or any other legal assistance you might need.  Contact information is available on our website (www.brunini.com), or you may call (601)948-3101 for assistance in reaching any member of our team.

ARE YOU READY (AGAIN)? – U.S. DOL FINALIZES EXPANDED EMPLOYEE OVERTIME ELIGIBLIITY RULES

by

The United States Department of Labor (the DOL) has released its Final Rule that will broaden federal overtime pay regulations to cover up to 1.3 million additional workers who are currently exempt from overtime eligibility. The Final Rule updates the regulations governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA).

The FLSA requires employers to pay its “non-exempt employees” overtime (1 ½ the workers’ “regular rate of pay”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207.  The DOL’s regulations implementing the FLSA sets forth a variety of employment classifications that are “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime requirement—including employees performing executive, administrative, and/or professional job duties.  Since the 1940’s, in order for an employee to qualify as an exempt “white collar” employee, he/she had to meet three “tests”:  (1) the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed; (2) the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount; and (3) the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties (as defined by the regulations).

The DOL last updated these regulations in 2004, setting the minimum salary threshold at $455 per week (or $23,660 annually). In May 2016, the Obama-era DOL attempted change to the overtime rule that would have doubled the minimum salary level for the so-called “white collar” exemption from $23,660 to nearly $48,000 per year.  This proposal would have also increased the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $134,004 annually (previously set at $100,000), established a mechanism for automatically updating the minimum salary level every three years and allowed employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10% of the new standard salary level.

The DOL’s new Final Rule, raises the minimum salary level for exempt employees to only $689 per week, or $35,568 annually.  The Proposed Rule does have many similarities to the 2016 proposal, including:

  • Allowing employers to count nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level test (provided such bonuses are paid annually or more frequently);
  • Increasing the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $107,432 annually (of which $684 must be paid weekly on a salary or fee basis); and
  • Not proposing any changes to the standard duties test for the white collar exemptions.

The Final Rule will go into effect on January 1, 2020. Although the Final Rule does not become effective for several months, employers should be proactive and engage their legal counsel to begin planning for the change now.  Preparations should include auditing current practices and projecting the cost of change and FLSA compliance under the anticipated new framework. This includes evaluating the possibility and effects of significantly higher operating costs. Our professionals are available to discuss your organization’s current structure, as well as any steps needed to insure compliance with the ever-changing legal landscape facing employers.  Contact any one of our Labor & Employment Practice Group professionals with any questions concerning the upcoming transition.

Related Attorneys

EEO-1 Component 2 Deadline Approaching!

by

All private employers employing 100 or more employees and subject to Title VII must submit an EEO-1 report annually. Most federal contractors and subcontractors that employ 50 or more employees also are required annually to submit an EEO-1 report (however, only those federal contractors that employ 100 or more employees are required to submit Component 2 data).  If an employer fails to submit its EEO-1 report, under Section 709(c) of Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may compel an employer to file its EEO-1 report by obtaining an order from the U.S. District Court. Under Section 209(a) of Executive Order 11246, the penalties for failure of a federal contractor or subcontractor to comply may include termination of the federal government contract and debarment from future federal contracts.

The EEO-1 Report is a compliance survey mandated by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 with amendments and administered by the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The filing of Standard Form 100 is required by law. The Component 1 survey required companies to categorize employment data by race/ethnicity, gender and job category.

In addition to Component 1, employers are required to submit pay data (also known as Component 2 or EEO-2) as part of EEO-1 reporting to improve investigations of possible pay discrimination by gender, race or ethnicity. In 2019, a federal judge reinstated the revised EEO-1 Component 2 reporting provisions. As a result, the EEOC announced the reinstatement of the revised EEO-1: Pay Data Collection, which requires the collection and submission of 2017 and 2018 pay data (Component 2) by September 30, 2019.

The EEOC, in conjunction with NORC at the University of Chicago (an independent research institution) established a web-based portal for the collection of this information, which can be accessed at this address: https://eeoccomp2.norc.org/.  Additionally, the EEOC established a toll-free number to answer frequently asked questions through NORC at (877) 324-6214. You can also send email questions to EEOCcompdata@norc.org.

Related Attorneys

BREAKING: Take 2 – U.S. Department of Labor Unveils Updated Attempt to Expand Employee Overtime Eligibility

by

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, the United States Department of Labor (the DOL) released its newest Proposed Rule that, if implemented, would broaden federal overtime pay regulations to cover millions of additional workers who are currently exempt from overtime eligibility.  Under the Proposed Rule, the DOL seeks to update the regulations governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees (the so-called “white collar” workers) are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA).

The FLSA requires employers to pay its “non-exempt employees” overtime (1 ½ the workers’ “regular rate of pay”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207.  The DOL’s regulations implementing the FLSA sets forth a variety of employment classifications that are “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime requirement—including employees performing executive, administrative, and/or professional job duties.  Since the 1940’s, in order for an employee to qualify as an exempt “white collar” employee, he/she had to meet three “tests”:  (1) the employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed; (2) the amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount; and (3) the employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties (as defined by the regulations).  The DOL last fully updated these regulations in 2004, setting the current minimum salary threshold at $455 per week (or $23,660 per year).

In May 2016, the Obama-era DOL attempted change to the overtime rule that would have doubled the minimum salary level for the so-called “white collar” exemption from $23,660 to nearly $48,000 per year.  This proposal would have also increased the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $134,004 annually (previously set at $100,000), established a mechanism for automatically updating the minimum salary level every three years and allowed employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10% of the new standard salary level.

Ultimately, the May 2016 proposal was challenged in court. On November 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas enjoined the DOL from implementing and enforcing the proposal. On August 31, 2017, the court granted summary judgment against the DOL, invalidating the May 2016 proposal.  Currently, the Department is enforcing the regulations that have been in place since 2004, including the $455 per week standard salary level.

While an appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is pending, the current DOL seeks to formally rescind the Obama-era DOL’s 2016 proposal with this Proposed Rule.  In its place, the new Proposed Rule would raise the minimum salary level for exempt employees to only $679 per week, or $35,308 annually.  The Proposed Rule does have many similarities to the 2016 proposal, including:

  • Allowing employers to count nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level test (provided such bonuses are paid annually or more frequently);
  • Increasing the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $147,414 annually (currently set at $100,000 annually); and
  • Not proposing any changes to the standard duties test for the white collar exemptions.

If the Proposed Rule is adopted, the DOL estimates that over 1.3 million workers who are currently classified as “salaried exempt”—and thus, not eligible for overtime—will become eligible for overtime pay.  While an increase, this figure is lower than the estimated 5 million workers who would have become eligible for overtime under the 2016 proposal.  As with the prior proposal, observers feel the number could rise well above the projected increase.  If implemented, the Proposed Rules will undoubtedly result in greater expense or operational change for many employers as they struggle to deal with a shrinking pool of workers who are eligible for an exemption from the overtime pay.

The Proposed Rule is still subject to a lengthy comment period before implementation.  The DOL encourages any interested members of the public to submit comments about the proposed rule electronically at www.regulations.gov (Rulemaking docket RIN 1235-AA20).

Though the Proposed Rule has not yet been finalized, employers are encouraged to be proactive and engage their legal counsel to begin planning for the change now.  Preparations should include auditing current practices and projecting the cost of change and FLSA compliance under the anticipated new framework. This includes evaluating the possibility and effects of significantly higher operating costs.

E-Verify Website/Service Unavailable During Federal Government Shutdown

by

“E-Verify”—the U.S. Government’s federal electronic employment eligibility verification service—has “expired”  due to a lapse in funding.  As a result, the e-Verify site and its services are not functioning and will not be available to participating U.S. employers during the partial shutdown of the federal government that began December 22, 2018.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the federal agency that oversees the program, reported that “information on this website may not be up to date. Transactions submitted via this website might not be processed and we will not be able to respond to inquiries until after appropriations are enacted.” As a result, DHS announced that the website (www.e-verify.gov) will not be actively managed and will not be updated until after funding is restored.

During the shutdown, U.S. employers will not be able to:

  • Enroll in the program;
  • Access their E-Verify accounts;
  • Create a case;
  • View or take action on any case;
  • Add, delete or edit accounts; or
  • Reset passwords, edit company information, terminate accounts, or run reports.

Conversely, workers will not be able to resolve any E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) during the shutdown. In addition, “myE-Verify” will be unavailable and employees will not be able to access their myE-Verify accounts.

To minimize the burden on both employers and employees, DHS announced that:

  • The three-day rule for creating E-Verify cases is suspended for cases affected by the unavailability of the service.
  • The time period during which employees may resolve TNCs will be extended. The number of days E-Verify is not available will not count toward the days the employee has to begin the process of resolving their TNCs.

As with prior shutdowns, additional guidance regarding the three-day rule and time period to resolve TNC deadlines will be provided once operations resume.

Employers will not be penalized for any delays in creating E-Verify cases. However, the shutdown does not affect an employer’s responsibility to verify employment eligibility. Employers must still complete the Form I-9 no later than the third (3rd) business day after an employee starts work for pay and comply with all other Form I-9 requirements.

As a result of the shutdown and the unavailability of E-Verify, participating employers are warned not to take any adverse action against employees while an E-Verify case remains in an unresolved status. Federal contractors with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)/E-Verify clause should contact their contracting officer to inquire about extending federal contractor deadlines.

January 2, 2019 is the last day of the Republican-controlled 2017-2018 Congress. Democrats take control of the United States House of Representatives, effective January 3, 2019.