Employment

FLSA Developments: Overtime Pay Rule Invalidated by Court, While Trump Administration Takes Up Salary Threshold Question Anew

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A federal trial court recently made permanent its hold on the new overtime rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, which would have dramatically increased the salary threshold for the “white-collar” employee exemption.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a “Request for Information,” seeking public comments about the salary threshold, with intriguing questions.  What does this mean for employers?  Nothing immediately, but all should stay tuned for further developments and continue their attentiveness to applicable overtime requirements.

Shifting Winds on Title VII’s Extension to Sexual Orientation? Zarda v. Altitude Express and the Trump Administration’s Amicus Brief

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Trump Administration has weighed in as to whether Title VII’s employment discrimination protections extend to sexual orientation claims, with a resounding “No.”  Through its amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the pending federal appeals case of Zarda v. Altitude Express, the U.S. Department of Justice asserts that employment-related sexual orientation discrimination claims do not fall within Title VII’s purview.  

Hively Update: Seventh Circuit Expands Title VII’s “Sex” to “Sexual Orientation,” in En Banc Ruling

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When does the word “sex” mean “sexual orientation,” for purposes of employment discrimination? In the pivotal Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College ruling issued last month, an eight-member majority of all the federal Seventh Circuit judges expanded “sex” to encompass “sexual orientation” for purposes of Title VII protection, although for varying reasons expressed through concurring opinions.  Three other judges dissented, urging judicial restraint in light of statutory interpretation constraints and settled law.  How did the judges come to such differing conclusions, and what can nonprofit employers learn from this decision?

Million-Dollar Salaries and Charities: An Unlikely Mix?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Feeling underpaid and overworked at your nonprofit organization?  For many nonprofit workers, such conditions are the norm.   Nonprofit employees are often willing to accept less pay than their private-sector counterparts because they also enjoy rich non-financial rewards:  helping others in need, serving worthy causes, and achieving goals not attainable through ordinary economic forces.   According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, however, top executives at some charities are increasingly very well paid.   The article states that over 2,700 top executives made more than seven-figure salaries in 2014.  How can some nonprofits justify such high salaries, and what can the rest learn from them? 

Q & A: Severance Pay for Nonprofit Employees

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Nonprofit organizations may legally provide severance pay.   But under what circumstances, and how much?  How do unemployment benefits fit with severance?  And why put it in writing?  Whenever a nonprofit employer considers whether to provide severance pay to a terminated employee, many significant questions can arise warranting careful evaluation of several factors including risk management, stewardship, fairness, and practical business decisions. 

Health Benefits Relief in Sight: Employer-Provided HRAs Back to Pre-Tax Treatment

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Reimbursing employees’ health insurance premiums and other health costs on a pre-tax basis again is available, thanks to the 21st Century Cures Act signed recently by President Obama.  The law becomes effective January 1, 2017.  A few words of caution - the law applies only to “small” employers, and it contains other significant limitations that could render it inappropriate in many circumstances.     

Federal Judge Halts New Overtime Pay Rule

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

By Sally Wagenmaker and Michael E. Batts, CPA

Temporary Injunction Puts Implementation in Question

A federal judge yesterday issued a nationwide temporary injunction halting the implementation of a new overtime pay rule scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016.  The judge, Amos L. Mazzant III – appointed by President Obama – ruled that the Obama administration (specifically, the U.S. Department of Labor) exceeded its legal authority in implementing the new rule.   Consequently, this rule change is on hold for all U.S. employers.  

What Exactly is Time-and-a-Half Pay? The Answer May Be Surprising

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

With the new federal overtime regulations becoming effective December 1, 2016, employers across the country are addressing how to calculate a salaried, non-exempt employee’s overtime wages. This question has become more acute now that many currently exempt employees will be classified as non-exempt, if they do not meet the increased salary threshold of $47,476 for the white-collar exemption, and therefore are owed overtime pay.[1] The specific calculation approach may significantly impact the resulting overtime pay owed, and the results may be surprising. The following examples and recommendations provide insights for optimal overtime pay practices.

White Collar Enough? FLSA Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, and Professional Job Duties

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Many nonprofits are acutely aware that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) salary threshold for the white collar exemption soon will more than double to $913 per week ($47,476 per year).  Another critical requirement for the white collar exemption’s applicability is the right job category, such as executive, administrative, or professional.  Absent such qualifying job duties, an employee will not fall within the exemption – even if his or her salary exceeds the salary threshold – and therefore will qualify for overtime pay as a non-exempt employee.  How are these job categories defined, and how can nonprofit employers make sure they properly classify their exempt employees?

Federal Court Denies Title VII Sexual Orientation Claim, But With Serious Reservations About Underlying Rationale

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Federal employment discrimination claims made on the basis of the plaintiff’s sexual orientation are not permissible in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, at least for now.   The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled against a woman’s employment discrimination claim based on sexual orientation, concluding that Title VII’s protection against discrimination based on “sex” does not extend to “sexual orientation.”  Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).  In so ruling, the court adhered to its binding precedent mandating the result.  However, the court also concluded that excessively blurred lines exist between protection for gender-nonconforming claims (those in which adverse employment action was based on the employee’s failure to conform to others’ views on how a person of the employee’s gender should look or act),  which enjoy some protection under Title VII, and sexual orientation claims, which do not.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Employment