Bonuses, Incentives & Stock Awards Can Raise the Overtime You Owe: Apple RSU Appeal Spotlights FLSA Regular-Rate Risk

November 4, 2026

Employers that provide non-exempt employees bonuses, incentive pay, commissions, retention or sign-on awards, or equity restricted stock units (“RSUs”) should confirm if the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires inclusion of that compensation in pay when computing the “regular rate” used to calculate overtime. Unless a payment fits within one of the FLSA’s narrow statutory exclusions—and the arrangement is designed and administered to meet every condition of that exclusion—the employer must add the compensation to the regular rate when computing overtime. Paying time-and-a-half on the base hourly wage alone is a common and costly error.

The Governing Rules: Bonus & Other Compensation Includable Unless Employer Proves Compensation Meets Exemption Requirements

The FLSA requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay of not less than one and one-half times the employee’s “regular rate” for hours over 40 in a workweek. The “regular rate” includes all remuneration for employment, except remuneration that the employer proves meets all requirements to qualify as exempt under Section 7(e) of the FLSA. The regular rate reflects actual pay facts and cannot be set by agreement. Excluded payments generally cannot be credited toward overtime owed unless the statute specifically permits it. DOL Fact Sheet #56C.

The evidence of the facts and circumstances, not how the employer labels the arrangement, determines if the added compensation qualifies as exempt. DOL Fact Sheet #56A.

As illustrated by the recent litigation in Costa v. Apple Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), equity, cash and other bonus or incentive compensation tied to production, attendance, safety, quality, retention, or other announced criteria are nondiscretionary and generally must be included. A “discretionary” label does not control. See DOL Fact Sheet #56C; 29 C.F.R. § 778.211.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) reaffirmed these rules in Opinion Letter FLSA 2026-2 (Jan. 5, 2026) and continues to recover back wages from employers that leave nondiscretionary bonuses out of overtime calculations.

Mistakes are costly for employers because FLSA exposure can be enforced by the Labor Department or litigated on a class action basis, reach back two years (three if willful), and awards include actual denied overtime pay plus an equal amount in liquidated damages and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.

Cash, Equity & Other Incentive Compensation Includable Unless Specific Exemption Requirements Met

Many employers mistakenly overestimate their ability to exclude cash, equity or other incentive compensation from the regular rate of pay when paying non-exempt hourly workers. Employers must be able to prove that this additional compensation needs all of the requirements of a specific exemption under section 7(e) of the FSLA. The following are the most common exemptions potentially available for bonus or other incentive compensation and their applicability depend on the employer being able to prove the remuneration meets all applicable conditions.

  • Discretionary Bonuses: All Three Conditions Must Be Met. A bonus is excludable as discretionary under 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(3) only if (1) the employer retains sole discretion, until at or near the end of the period the bonus covers, over whether to pay it; (2) the employer likewise retains sole discretion over the amount; and (3) the payment is not made under any prior contract, agreement, or promise that causes employees to expect it regularly. 29 C.F.R. § 778.211; DOL Fact Sheet #56C. If the employer announces or promises a bonus in advance, it has given up that discretion. DOL identifies as examples of nondiscretionary (includable) bonuses those based on a predetermined formula such as individual or group production; quality and accuracy bonuses; bonuses announced to encourage efficiency; attendance bonuses; and safety bonuses. Examples that may be discretionary if all conditions are met include unplanned awards for overcoming a challenging situation, employee-of-the-month awards, severance bonuses, and certain referral bonuses. The fact that an employer could decline to pay a promised bonus does not make it discretionary. DOL Fact Sheet #56C.
  • Gifts, Holiday, Longevity, and Sign-On Payments. Gifts and special-occasion payments may be excluded if their amounts are not measured by or dependent on hours worked, production, or efficiency. Longevity and sign-on bonuses can qualify, but not when paid under a contract or when they are so substantial that employees likely regard them as part of their wages; sign-on bonuses with clawbacks paid under a collective bargaining agreement, ordinance, or policy must be included. DOL Fact Sheet #56C. Year-end “holiday” bonuses that are paid every year or computed as a percentage of pay are frequent trouble spots.
  • Equity Compensation. Section 7(e)(8), added by the Worker Economic Opportunity Act of 2000, excludes value or income from qualifying employer-provided stock options, stock appreciation rights, and bona fide employee stock purchase programs—but only when statutory conditions concerning program terms, communication to employees, timing of exercisability, pricing, and the basis on which grants are made are satisfied.
  • RSUs are not expressly listed, which is the core dispute in Costa. The Valuing Employee Stock Today Act, H.R. 8660, 119th Cong., introduced May 4, 2026, would amend Section 7(e)(8) to add restricted stock unit programs to the exclusion. Unless and until Congress acts or the Ninth Circuit affirms, employers granting RSUs to non-exempt workers should treat inclusion risk as live—particularly outside the Ninth Circuit.

When not excludable, a nondiscretionary bonus or other incentive compensation earned over a month, quarter, or year must be allocated back across the workweeks it covers, and additional overtime must be paid for each overtime week in that period. 29 C.F.R. § 778.209. When the bonus cannot be traced to particular weeks, it is generally allocated equally across the weeks of the period. 

The following illustrates this requirement when an hourly employee earns a $2,600 nondiscretionary annual production bonus. The employee worked 50 hours (10 overtime hours) in 20 of the year’s 52 weeks. Allocated equally:

$2,600 ÷ 52 weeks = $50.00 allocated per week

$50.00 ÷ 50 hours = $1.00 increase to the regular rate in each 50-hour week

$1.00 × 0.5 = $0.50 additional half-time premium per overtime hour

$0.50 × 10 overtime hours × 20 weeks = $100.00 additional overtime owed

Multiplied across a workforce and a two- or three-year lookback, with liquidated damages potentially doubling back pay, small per-employee amounts can produce significant exposure. For DOL’s workweek-based calculation examples, see Fact Sheet #56C.

Enforcement Shows Improper Exclusion Costly

DOL and private enforcement demonstrates the high cost employers face for incorrectly excluding bonus or other incentive compensation from remuneration taken into account when calculating overtime pay.

The Apple RSU Litigation. Costa v. Apple Inc., No. 26-4411 (9th Cir.) is the latest reminder that how incentive compensation is structured and documented determines whether it drives up overtime liability. 

In Costa v. Apple Inc., No. 3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), a former AppleCare adviser filed a collective action in March 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Apple failed to include the value of vested RSUs awarded to hourly, non-exempt employees when calculating their overtime rate. The case grew to include an FLSA collective along with California and New York state-law classes. 

On June 11, 2026, the district court granted summary judgment based on the facts and circumstances to Apple—reportedly the first federal ruling to hold that RSUs need not be included in the regular rate. If upheld on appeal, the District Court ruling provides employers helpful direction about how to design and administer non-exempt employee equity-based incentive compensation court concluded that Apple’s RSUs were excludable on two independent grounds:

  • Gifts and special-occasion payments, 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(1). The court emphasized that Apple retained full discretion over whether to grant awards, to whom, and in what amount, and that awards were not set by any pre-announced formula tied to hours, output, or efficiency. It rejected the employees’ argument that the service-based vesting requirement converted the awards into compensation for work.
  • Stock options, stock appreciation rights, and employee stock purchase programs, 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(8). Although RSUs are not named in the statute, the court reasoned that Congress would not have intended to treat RSUs differently from stock options given their functional similarity and the shift toward RSUs after the provision was enacted in 2000.

Notably, however, the district court did not rest its ruling on the discretionary-bonus exclusion, reasoning that Apple did not control the ultimate value of the awards once granted because value depended on the share price at vesting. The court also found that Apple acted in good faith—crediting its contemporaneous documentation of the legal basis for its position—which would have barred liquidated damages even had the employees prevailed. 

Also, while the federal district court ruled for Apple on RSUs, that decision is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Costa v. Apple Inc., No. 26-4411 (9th Cir.). In their Ninth Circuit appeal, the employees contend the district court erred in allowing Apple to exclude the stock awards. Until the Ninth Circuit rules, the district court decision is the only federal ruling squarely on point, it binds no other court, and its gift-exclusion analysis is fact-specific to the design and administration of Apple’s program.

While Costa is the first ruling in RSUs, it’s one of a number of RSU and other incentive compensation challenges.

Google RSU and Sign-On Bonus Settlement. In Bowlay-Williams v. Google, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-09942 (N.D. Cal.), hourly employees alleged Google left vested RSUs, commissions, and sign-on bonuses out of overtime calculations. The court granted final approval in August 2023 to an $8.369 million settlement covering an FLSA collective and a California class. Settlement is not an admission of liability, but the case shows the economic pressure these claims generate when equity or bonuses are paid broadly to non-exempt staff. 

DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2026-2. On January 5, 2026, the DOL Wage and Hour Division (WHD) concluded that a waste-management employer paying drivers a $12.00 hourly base wage plus “Safety, Job Duties, and Performance” incentive bonuses had to include those bonuses in the regular rate for each workweek in which they were earned. Because the plan set eligibility criteria and amounts in advance, the employer had given up the discretion required for exclusion. Opinion Letter FLSA2026-2.

Other Recent DOL Recoveries. Other recent actions further drive home the advisability of employers auditing their FLSA risks from potential improper omission of bonus, equity or other incentive compensation from hourly employee overtime pay. For example:

  • The State Group Industrial (USA) Ltd. Inc. paid $1,730,598 in back wages for 1,666 hourly workers at a Tennessee electric-vehicle and battery manufacturing campus after WHD found the contractor omitted incentive bonuses from the regular rate. DOL News Release (June 23, 2026).
  • M.J. Electric LLC paid more than $207,000 in back wages and damages for 157 workers, plus a civil money penalty for a repeat violation, for omitting nondiscretionary bonuses from overtime calculations. DOL News Release (May 22, 2025).
  • Boom-a-Rang Diner paid back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages for non-exempt managers whose monthly performance bonuses were excluded from overtime at 53 Oklahoma locations. DOL News Brief (Mar. 5, 2024).
  • Jadex Inc. and subsidiaries paid $259,474 for 939 employees whose sales and safety bonuses, shift incentives, and trainer premiums were left out of the regular rate. DOL News Release (Mar. 27, 2023).

The lesson across these matters is consistent: the violations involved no failure to pay overtime at all—only a failure to pay it on the correct rate. Because the error repeats every overtime workweek for every affected employee, modest per-paycheck shortfalls aggregate quickly.

Violations Trigger Significant Liability

Employees may recover unpaid overtime plus an equal amount as liquidated damages, along with attorneys’ fees and costs, and may sue on behalf of similarly situated employees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The limitations period is two years, extended to three for willful violations. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).

A court may reduce or eliminate liquidated damages if the employer shows it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds for believing its practice was lawful. 29 U.S.C. § 260. As Costa illustrates, contemporaneous, counsel-supported documentation of the basis for an exclusion can be decisive on good faith and willfulness.

State law adds another layer. California and New York claims were part of the Apple case, and state wage laws may define wages, the regular rate, or overtime differently from the FLSA. Texas does not generally impose a separate overtime requirement on private employers beyond the FLSA, but multistate employers must evaluate each jurisdiction where non-exempt employees work. 

Management/In-House Counsel Should Act To Mitigate Exposures

Since violations are common and trigger significant liability, employers that have or plan to pay remuneration to hourly employees beyond base pay should work with legal counsel to conduct a risk and compliance audit of all additional remuneration within the scope of attorney-client privilege to evaluate and mitigate risks. Leadership generally should:

  • Commission any regular-rate audit at the direction of counsel to help preserve attorney-client privilege and work-product protection for findings and recommendations. Employers dealing with these issues also should be careful to avoid discussing or assessing these issues with internal personnel or outside service providers outside the scope of attorney—client privilege as attorney-client privilege and work product evidentiary protections do not apply to audits or discussions of known or potential compliance concerns conducted or shared outside the scope of attorney-client privilege;
  • Have legal counsel assist the employer to document the legal basis for any exclusion contemporaneously to support good-faith and non-willfulness defenses;
  • Monitor the Costa appeal and other litigation, H.R. 8660, DOL and state labor department enforcement and guidance, and other future developments and be prepared to revise practices promptly as the law develops.

The risk assessment generally should at minimum encompass the following:

Worker Classification Defensibility. Employer misclassification of workers as contractors that the FLSA considers employees and as salaried that do not qualify as exempt employees is common. Since misclassification triggers minimum wage or overtime, as well as FLSA recordkeeping, tax and other costly violations, employers should start my verifying the defensibility of every service provider classified as a non-employee or salaried employee.

Payroll and HR Operations. Employers should ensure their payroll practices and systems capture, properly track, and classify for base rate and overtime purposes all remuneration. The investigation should:

  • Inventory every form of pay non-exempt employees receive beyond base wages—bonuses, incentives, commissions, shift and skill differentials, retention and sign-on awards, spot awards, referral payments, and equity—and identify how each is treated in overtime calculations.
  • Confirm payroll systems add includable amounts to the regular rate and correctly allocate multi-week bonuses back to the workweeks they cover.
  • Train managers that announcing, promising, or routinely paying a bonus can eliminate discretion, regardless of how the program is labeled.

Compensation Committees and Incentive Plan Designers.

The employer should require that compensation committees, incentive plan designers and others involved in planning, offering or providing to confirm the FLSA treatment of the proposed remuneration before announcing or paying it. Additionally, the employer should:

  • Review bonus and incentive plan documents, offer letters, handbooks, and employee communications for pre-announced criteria, formulas, or promises that make awards nondiscretionary.
  • Where exclusion is intended, design and administer the program to satisfy every element of the applicable exclusion; where it is not, budget for the resulting overtime cost or consider structures such as a bonus expressed as a percentage of total earnings that may satisfy overtime under 29 C.F.R. § 778.210. [VERIFY: § 778.210 conditions]

Equity Plan Sponsors and Benefits Teams

The employer also should require a documented analysis of its existing and planned equity and other benefit programs for FLSA purposes. This analysis should include:

  • Identify non-exempt populations receiving RSUs, options, stock appreciation rights, or employee stock purchase plan benefits, and determine how vesting or exercise income is currently treated for overtime purposes.
  • Evaluate whether award agreements and plan administration preserve discretion over grants and avoid ties to hours, production, or efficiency, and whether stock option, SAR, and ESPP terms meet Section 7(e)(8) conditions.
  • Coordinate with payroll and tax so equity income that must be included is captured in the workweeks to which it relates. 

For any upcoming pay, employers should seek the assistance of this legal counsel to design and document the compensation arrangements to qualify as exempt or ensure to include the compensation that will not qualify as exempt in the base pay used to calculate overtime and pay and budget accordingly.

Employers that identify past errors may consider whether to correct them through the WHD Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, a direct remediation, or another approach, weighing release, tax, and litigation considerations with counsel. Privately settlements do not resolve Labor Department FLSA exposure unless the Labor Department joins in the settlement.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer has decades of experience advising and representing employers on these and other workforce, compensation and benefit concerns.

Well-known for her knowledge, training and publications on these concerns, Ms. Stamer also is nationally recognized for her extensive publications, training and advocacy on health and other employee benefits matters,

For more information about securing a copy of the recording, attending the upcoming or other briefings, or other health or other employee benefits, workforce, health care or other training, resources, or services, see http://www.solutionslawyer.com orcontact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law, American College of Employee Benefits Counsel Fellow, and a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorney and advisor peer recognized as a “Top Rated Lawyer,” “LEGAL LEADER™” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in ERISA & Employee Benefits Law, Labor and Employment Law, Health Care Law, and Business and Commercial Law.

Nationally recognised for her decades of leading edge human resources, compensation, employee benefits, and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, Ms. Stamer is well known for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health benefit and other health and managed care, privacy and data security and other employee benefit, insurance, and health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. 

Her experience includes extensive work helping these and other clients design, audit, and defend their compensation, pay, benefits, performance and other policies and practices including designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting compliance and risk, transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and dealing with their consequences.

Former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security Privatization reform, miss Stamer also has extensive legislative and regulatory affairs experience on federal, state and international employee benefits, healthcare, workforce, education, insurance, data privacy and security, antitrust, and other regulations and reforms.

In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations, Ms. Stamer currently or previously served as the Scribe leading annual agency meetings on HIPAA and other issues with the Department of Health and Human Services; leadership Council Representative, speaker, author and faculty lead for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and International Life Sciences Committee Chair; the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees Vice Chair; the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair and Risk Management Interest Group Chair; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Welfare Benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, and Plan Terminations and Transactions Committees Chair; Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association; a Southwest Benefits Association Board Member; a SHRM Consultants National and Region IV Board Chair; WEB National Board Member and Dallas Chapter President; National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board Member and Compliance Chair; Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency Board President; a North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member; and other leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded works on health and other benefits, human resources, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns, examples of these publications include “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other publications and presentations. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press™

Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

©️2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. All rights reserved. Non-exclusive, limited right to publish granted to Solutions Law Press. 

Comments Off on Bonuses, Incentives & Stock Awards Can Raise the Overtime You Owe: Apple RSU Appeal Spotlights FLSA Regular-Rate Risk | child labor, compensation, compensation transparency, compliance, corporate governance, Employee Benefits, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, Executive Compensation, Fair Labor Standards Act, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Fringe Benefit, Fringe Benefits, HR, Human Resources, Wage & Hour, White Collar Exemption | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Court Order Shows What Not To Do When Facing A FLSA Or Other DOL Investigation

March 2, 2023

A federal court order against a Brewster home care provider shows some key things an employer should not do when facing a Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or other Labor Department investigation. With Labor Department wage and hour and other employment and labor law enforcement soaring under the Biden Administration’s pro-employee agenda, all employers should learn from the schooling this and other noncompliant employers are receiving from the Labor Department and courts.

Sunrise Home Health Care, Inc. & Owner Injunction For FLSA Investigation interference & Retaliation

The Labor Department obtained a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 1, 2023 ordering Sunrise Home Care Inc. and owner Elsa Silva to stop retaliating against employees in an effort to obstruct the wage and Hour Division’s FLSA investigation.

According to the Labor Department complaint, when the Wage and Hour Division began an investigation to evaluate the employers’ compliance with the FLSA in January 2023, Silva has harassed and intimidated employees repeatedly by

  • Asking workers about their communications with investigators;
  • instructing workers to provide false information;
  • Telling employees she would have to close the business and they would lose their jobs if the investigation determined she had to pay overtime premiums; and
  • Pressuring employees to agree to return to the employers any monies owed to employees as a result of the investigation.

The court order secured by the Labor Department forbids Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. from doing the following:

  • Violating the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.
  • Threatening employees with termination or other retaliatory actions or taking any other actions to prevent them from participating in the Department’s investigation or in any other FLSA-protected activity.
  • Obstructing and interfering, in any way, with the investigation.
  • Telling workers not to cooperate with investigators or to provide incomplete or false information to them.
  • Questioning employees about their cooperation or communications with investigators.
  • Advising current and former employees that they must “kickback” or return any back wages the department may determine they are owed.
  • Communicating with any employee regarding the investigation without first informing the employee that they may communicate with investigators voluntarily and not be discriminated against for doing so.

The court order secured by the Labor Department also orders Silva and Sunrise Home Care Inc. to:

  • Permit division representatives to read aloud – in English, Spanish, Portuguese and any other language understood by most employees – a statement describing employees’ FLSA rights during their paid working hours and in the presence of the defendants.
  • Mail a written statement of the same to current and former employees.
  • Provide a written notice to the Wage and Hour Division at least seven days before terminating an employee for any reason.

The injunctive relief issued by the Court seeks to allows the Labor Department investigation to continue without further employer obstruction. Aside from any contempt sanctions Sunrise and Silva could incur for violating the court’s order, the alleged threats and retaliation also could serve as a basis for the assessment of additional liability as a sanction for the employee’s prohibited retaliation beyond any backpay and penalty awards the Labor Department finds the employer owes for failing to pay wages or keep records.

FLSA Liability Risks High; Learn From Other Employer’s Mistakes

Other employees and their management should learn from the schooling the court ordered against Sunrise and Silva and avoid engaging in the actions prohibited by the court order when facing their own FLSA or other Labor Department investigation.

The Labor Department views audit, investigation and enforcement of the FLSA compliance and violations a key priority and employers risk significant liability for violations from Wage and Hour Division or private enforcement.

Enforcement by the Labor Department and private litigants of minimum wage, overtime, child labor, human trafficking and other laws is increasingly common. the Labor Department Wage and Hour Division concludes approximately 21,000 Fair Labor Standards Act cases, impacting over 200,000 workers each year. Over the last five years, Wage and Hour has collected more than $1 billion in back wages for workers in America. But the Department of Labor recognizes that back wages alone provide insufficient compensation to employees for lost wages. Although actual enforcement dipped slightly over the past two years due to the disruption in the Wage and Hour Division’s staffing and operation during the COVID-19 health care emergency, its announcement of a stream of FLSA enforcement actions reflects it is resuming its zealous enforcement. See WHD FLSA and Other Statistics. Therefore, liquidated damages are intended to compensate workers for damages they may have incurred as the result of not having been paid timely for all the wages they legally earned.

Employers found in violation of these rules enforcement actions face actual damages, interest, civil monetary penalties, enforcement costs, and in the case of willful violations, even potential criminal sanctions. While the Labor Department during the Trump Presidency suspended its pursuit of collection of liquidated damages authorized under the FLSA Generous recoveries also make private enforcement very attractive to employees and plaintiffs’ counsel, this leniency ended after President Biden took office. Since April 9, 2021, Labor Department wage and hour law enforcement policy includes pursuing the implementation and collection of liquidated damages in addition to back pay and interest due for unpaid wages from employers found in violation of the FLSA and other wage and hour laws. Private litigants can recover actual damages plus double damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and other costs of enforcement. The availability of these extraordinary damages and recoveries makes these highly popular cases to many plaintiffs’ attorneys.

As demonstrated by the Exxon injunction, employers facing wage and hour investigations, audits or even employee inquiries or underpayment assertions other should keep in mind that actions by the employer that could be viewed as interference with an investigation by the Labor Department as well as improperly handled employee questions or statements of concern about potential FLSA and other related requirements can create retaliation or whistleblower risks. Accordingly, employers should use care to investigate and respond carefully to these concerns, addressing workers during the conduct of a Labor Department audit, investigation or enforcement action and in handling subsequent discipline or other employment decisions involving workers raising them.

Along with FLSA claims, these violations also can trigger state wage an hour, payday act and other liabilities.

Many businesses experience difficulties defending wage and hour and other FLSA claims due to lax timekeeping and recordkeeping practices, misclassification of workers as contract labor or exempt, failure to include nondiscretionary bonus or other required compensation or hours of work when calculating overtime liability and other common mistakes.

Businesses also should use care to manage their potential exposure to joint employer or other liability for unpaid wages, overtime or other FLSA violations committed by subcontractors, contract labor companies, staffing or other businesses providing workers. Businesses can face imputed liability for violations committed by these other organizations when the facts and circumstances show the business exercises sufficient control over the details of the details of the worker’s work to qualify as a common law employer, whether the relationship between the business and the provider of worker qualifies as a “joint employment” relationship under the rules applicable to FLSA and National Labor Relations Act determinations for joint employment or certain other situations. he Wage and Hour Division also has propose adoption of a regulation to govern classification of workers as employees versus independent contractors for purposes of the FLSA, which if adopted, would heighten the likelihood that many workers considered contractors by businesses could be reclassified by the Labor Department as employees for FLSA and other wage and hour law purposes. The comment period for that regulation closed in December, 2022. Government contractors and subcontractors also may bear responsibility for contracting with subcontractors and taking other steps to ensure that these subcontracting entities comply with government contract wage requirements and the FLSA.

Misunderstandings about when workers are classified as employees versus contractors, exempt versus non-exempt, and regarding the appropriate tracking, counting, and reporting of hours work increasingly play a major role in aiding Labor Department or plaintiff’s successful enforcement and increase employer liability. Many employers failure to appreciate the significance of statutory presumptions of the existence of an employment relationship and of non-exempt status on the burden of proof the employer must meet to defend its treatment of a worker as a nonemployee or exempt employee. Many employers also fail to recognize the significance of special FLSA rules for characterization of workers as employees, the risk of reclassification of workers the employer considers as contractors or through staffing, day labor or other labor subcontractors as their employees or joint employees. Equally common are misconceptions about the narrowness of the rules for treating employees as exempt and eligible for payment on a salary rather than hourly basis. These mistakes also create a heightened risk that the employer will failed to track necessary Information to defend against employee or Labor Department hours of work claims, overtime or minimum wage claim as well as fuel additional liability for failing to comply with FLSA rules for tracking reporting of hours work. These misperceptions also often lead misinformed employers to take actions that provide a basis for retaliation claims. The Labor Department and private litigant leverage these mistakes to achieve their recoveries.

Because these audits often uncover violations or lead to sensitive conversations about the classification and payment of workers under the FLSA and other laws, employers and their leaders generally should arrange for this analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney client privilege under the direction of a lawyer experienced in FLSA and other employment law compliance.

More Information

We hope this update is helpful. For more information about the these or other health or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297. 

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.  

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 35+ years of workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, scholarship and thought leadership.

A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Vice Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, Scribe for the ABA JCEB Annual Agency Meeting with HHS-OCR, past chair of the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group and current co-Chair of its Welfare Benefit Committee, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her 35 year career has focused heavily on working with employer and other staffing and workforce organizations, health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns. As an ongoing component of this work, she regularly advises, represents and defends businesses on FLSA, CAS, SCA, Davis-Bacon, Equal Pay Act and other wage and hour, compensation and benefit and other Human Resources, Guideline Program and other compliance, risk management and other internal and external controls in a wide range of areas and has published and spoken extensively on these concerns.

Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on workforce, compensation, and other operations, risk management, compliance and regulatory and public affairs concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources available here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT THIS COMMUNICATION

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or an admission. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving, and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The author and Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication. Readers acknowledge and agree to the conditions of this Notice as a condition of their access of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2023 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Limited non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Court Order Shows What Not To Do When Facing A FLSA Or Other DOL Investigation | Child Labor, child labor, compensation, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, employee, Employee Handbook, Employees Under Age 20, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, FMLA, Government Contractors, Handicapped Employee, HR, Human Resources, Joint Employer, Retaliation, tipped employee, White Collar Exemption | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Law Firm Nailed For FLSA Violations

September 8, 2021

A law firm is the latest employer nailed for Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) overtime violations by the US Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“DOL”).

Following an investigation and federal court order, the U.S. Department of Labor recovered $26,496 in back wages and liquidated damages from the Auburn, Alabama based Slocumb Law Firm LLC for failing to pay overtime to 42 workers.

Investigators also determined Slocumb failed to keep accurate records of hours worked for workers paid on a salary basis who the DOL found we’re not exempt under the FLSA.

In December 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Eastern Division issued a default judgment, affirming the DOL’s findings that the personal injury law firm and owner Michael W. Slocumb failed to pay the workers overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a workweek.

The court ordered the firm and its owner to pay $13,248 in back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages.

Slocumb originally filed a motion to set aside the judgement but later withdrew it. The DOL then sent a demand letter requiring payment for the wages that the workers were legally owed.

The action illustrates both the widespread misunderstanding of many law firm and other employers of the rules regarding the treatment of employees as salaried, exempt from FLSA minimum wage, overtime and record keeping requirements and the DOL’s readiness to enforce those rules.

Misunderstandings about when workers are classified as employees versus contractors, exempt versus non-exempt, and regarding the appropriate tracking, counting, and reporting of hours work are recurrent grounds for frequent DOL and private litigant recoveries. Many employers fail to recognize The significance of special FLSA rules for characterization of workers as employees and the narrowness of the rules for treating employees as exempt and eligible for payment on a salary rather than hourly basis. These mistakes also create a heightened risk that the employer will failed to track necessary Information to defend against employee or DOL hours of work claims and and trigger additional liability for failing to comply with FLSA rules forreporting of hours work. These misperceptions also often lead misinformed employers to take actions that provide a basis for retaliation claims. DOL and private litigant leverage these mistakes to achieve their recoveries.

Enforcement by the DOL and private litigants is common.

DOL views FLSA enforcement as a key priority. “Employers must pay employees all the wages they’ve legally earned, including overtime when they work over 40 in a workweek,” said Wage and Hour Division District Director Kenneth Stripling in Birmingham, Alabama in announcing the recovery. “The Wage and Hour Division will use every avenue, including the courts, to protect workers’ rights and ensure they receive the wages they are lawfully owed. Employers should contact the agency and speak with a Wage and Hour professional to avoid these violations and ensure compliance with federal wage laws.”

Employers found in violation of these rules in DOL enforcement actions face actual damages, interest, civil monetary penalties, enforcement costs, and in the case of willful violations, even potential criminal sanctions.

Generous recoveries also makes private enforcement very attractive to employees and plaintiffs’ counsel. Private litigants can recover actual damages plus double damages, interest, attorneys fees and other costs of enforcement. The availability of these extraordinary damages and recoveries makes these highly popular cases to many plaintiffs attorneys.

Along with FLSA claims, these violations also can trigger state wage an hour, payday act and other liabilities.

DOL and private litigant leverage these mistakes to achieve their recoveries. Aside from avoiding potentially costly mistakes, critically reviewing and documenting the basis of characterization of workers as employees versus contractors and exempt versus non-exempt can minimize the risk that violations will be found willful.

Because these audits often uncover violations or lead to sensitive conversations about the classification and payment of workers under the FLSA and other laws, employers and their leaders generally should arrange for this analysis to be conducted within the scope of attorney client privilege under the direction of a lawyer experienced in FLSA and other employment law compliance.

Additionally, employers should keep in mind that improperly handled employee questions or statements of concern about potential FLSA and other related requirements could create retaliation or whistleblower risks. Accordingly, employers should use care to investigate and respond carefully to these concerns and in handling subsequent discipline or other employment decisions involving workers raising them.

More Information

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com,  on  Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns.

©2021 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Law Firm Nailed For FLSA Violations | Bankruptcy, board of directors, Child Labor, Civil Monetary Penalties, compensation, compliance, Corporate Compliance, employee, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Policies, enforcement, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, Management, Non-Exempt, Overtime, Pay, Retaliation, Salaried, Wage & Hour, White Collar Exemption, Worker, Worker Classification, Workforce | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Salary Threshold Increases Require Employer Review Of Salaried Worker FLSA Exemption Qualification

September 25, 2019

Beginning January 1, 2020, only employees earning at least $684 per week (equivalent to $35,568 per year for a full year worker) can qualify for payment on a salaried basis as employees exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) minimum wage and overtime requirements under the “White Collar Exemption” for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, computer employees and at least $107, 342 per year to qualify as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements as a “highly compensated employee” (“HCE”). 

As the Department estimates that these changes will cause more than 1.3 million additional workers to qualify for minimum wage and overtime pay, employers who  treat any employees as exempt from FLSA overtime, minimum wage and recordkeeping requirements based on the FLSA White Collar or HCE Exemption should reconfirm continued applicability of the exemption and take other steps in preparation for the January 1 rule change.

White Collar & HCE Exemption Salary Threshold Increase On  January 1, 2020

A final rule announced by the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) on September 24, 2019 and currently awaiting assignment for official publication in the Federal Register will raise the minimum earnings threshold that WHD regulations require as a prerequisite to an employer treating an employee as exempt from the FLSA under the White Collar Exemption for the first time since 2004[1]. WHD estimates that the increase in the salary threshold implemented by the final rule will make 1.2 million additional workers entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay and that an additional 101,800 workers will be entitled to overtime pay as a result of the increase to the HCE compensation level.

Under the final rule, beginning January 1, 2020, the salary threshold amount for the White Collar Exemption will increase from $455 per week to $684 per week.

In addition to these changes in the White Collar Exemption salary threshold, the final rule also will:

  • Increase the total annual compensation level for “highly compensated employees (HCE)” from the currently-enforced level of $100,000 to $107,432 per year;
  • Revise the special salary levels for workers in U.S. territories and in the motion picture industry as follows:
    • Maintain the current special salary level of $380 per week for American Samoa because minimum wage rates there have remained lower than the federal minimum wage;
    • Set a special salary level of $455 per week for employees in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and
    • Increase the special “base rate” threshold for employees in the motion picture producing industry. proportionally to the increase in the standard salary level test, resulting in a new base rate of $1,043 per week (or a proportionate amount based on the number of days worked).
  • Permit nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) paid at least annually to an employee to be counted as compensation to the employee to satisfy up to 10% of the standard White Collar Exemption salary threshold ($68.40 per week) for purposes of determining if the employee earns sufficient compensation to satisfy the salary threshold for the White Collar Exemption but not the HCE Exemption; and
  • Announce the intention by the WHD to increase these threshold amounts more regularly in response to inflation through notice and rulemaking, while abandoning a prior proposal to accomplish these updates automatically through inflation indexing.

Treatment of Nondiscretionary Bonuses and Incentive Payments

In the final rule, in recognition of evolving pay practices, the Department also permits employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10 percent of the standard salary level. For employers to credit nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments toward a portion of the standard salary level test, they must make such payments on an annual or more frequent basis.  This is just one of the fringe benefit related refinements WHD recently made or proposed to make  to its regulations that impact the implications of noncash compensation and other perks in the past couple years. See e.g., Proposed FLSA Base Pay Rule Clarifies Overtime Treatment Of Perks.  Understanding the existing and proposed rules and enforcement positions is important for employers to properly manage their FLSA obligations.  

If an employee does not earn enough in nondiscretionary bonus or incentive payments in a given year (52-week period) to retain his or her exempt status, the Department permits the employer to make a “catch-up” payment within one pay period of the end of the 52-week period. This payment may be up to 10 percent of the total standard salary level for the preceding 52-week period. Any such catch-up payment will count only toward the prior year’s salary amount and not toward the salary amount in the year in which it is paid

Employer Actions Required

Employers paying or planning to any employee on a salaried basis in reliance upon the employer’s treatment of that employee as covered by the White Collar Exemption or HCE Exemption to the FLSA minimum wage and overtime rules should evaluate whether that employee continues to qualify for coverage under the applicable exemption taking into account the modifications implemented by the final rule.  By December 31, 2020, employers of any employee currently classified and paid on a salaried basis in reliance upon the White Collar or HCE Exemptions will need to:

  • Confirm whether the employee earns sufficient compensation to qualify for continued coverage by the applicable exemption taking into account the changes implemented by the final rule;
  • For employees disqualified for continued classification as exempt due to the increase in the required salary threshold, either increase the compensation that the employer pays the employee to meet the increased threshold or reclassify as nonexempt and treat the disqualified employee as covered by the FLSA minimum wage, overtime, timekeeping and recordkeeping requirements no later than January 1, 2020; and
  • For any employee who will not qualify for exemption after January 1, 2020, implement necessary procedures to ensure that the applicable time and other recordkeeping, minimum wage and overtime requirements are met.

Employers anticipating that they will employ employees impacted by the changes of the final rule also generally will want to take into account these impending changes when reviewing and designing their base, incentive and other compensation and benefit practices for these employees as well as in compensation, budget, product or service bidding and contracting and other impacted business practices.  

When conducting this analysis and planning employers should keep in mind that while the final rule allows employers satisfy up to 10% of the salary threshold for the White Collar Exemption with nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments paid to the employee, nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments will not count as compensation for purposes of the HCE threshold.  Employers also should carefully review existing guidance to verify their understanding of what bonuses and incentive payments qualify as nondiscretionary for purposes of the WHD regulations as employers frequently underestimate and inappropriately fail to take into account bonus or other incentive compensation when calculating overtime that WHD views as nondiscretionary and therefore required to be included when calculating and paying overtime.

Additionally, employers relying upon the White Collar Exemption to treat employees as exempt from the FMLA are encouraged to reconfirm that any employee paid on a salary basis otherwise continues to fulfill all conditions required to qualify for that exemption.  WHD enforcement history contains an already voluiminous and continuously growing list of employers nailed for FLSA minimum wage and overtime violations due to their reliance upon overly optimistic or otherwise inappropriate determinations regarding the applicability of the White Collar Exemption to various members of their workforces.  Employers should keep in mind that employers bear the burden of proof when raising the White Collar or other exemptions as a defense to a minimum wage, overtime, recordkeeping or other FMLA violation.

Employers staffing or making use of labor or services provided by employee leasing, temporary staffing, day labor, contractors, or other contingent worker sources also are encouraged to keep in mind the growing aggressiveness by WHD and private litigants in challenging and obtaining reclassification of contingent workers as employees of the businesses receiving these services, holding the recipient of these contingent worker services liable as a joint employer or both.  Given the growth in both the frequency and success of these challenges, businesses using contingent workforce workers generally should (1) realistically reevaluate their potential exposure to minimum wage and overtime liability from services received from contingent workers; and (2) pursue opportunities to mitigate these exposures by reconfiguring these relationships, contracting for assurances and access to documentation necessary to prove that the contingent workforce provider properly classifies and pays minimum wage and overtime and maintains time and other records, and ensuring that the business can access records that it likely would need to investigate and defend itself against potential FLSA liability claims that the WHD or a private litigant might assert against it with regard to services performed by contingent workers.

Need more information about this article  or have questions about your company’s responsibilities under the FLSA  or other wage and hour, leave or other workforce, compensation or employee benefit concerns?   You can contact the author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, by e-mail here or telephone her at (214) 452.8297.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Labor and Employment Law and Health Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, and a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and public speaker widely known for 30+ years of management focused employment, compensation and employee benefits and other workforce and performance management, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.

Highly valued for using her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience to help clients find and implement pragmatic strategies and solutions, Ms. Stamer’s clients include health industry, employee benefit, insurance and financial services and a diverse array of other employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors;   domestic and international public and private health care, education and other community service and care organizations; managed care organizations; insurers, third-party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations;  and other private and government organizations and their management leaders.

Throughout her 30 plus year career, Ms. Stamer has continuously worked with these and other management clients to design, implement, document, administer and defend hiring, performance management, compensation, promotion, demotion, discipline, reduction in force and other workforce, employee benefit, insurance and risk management, health and safety, and other programs, products and solutions, and practices; establish and administer compliance and risk management policies; manage labor-management relations, comply with requirements, investigate and respond to government, accreditation and quality organizations, regulatory and contractual audits, private litigation and other federal and state reviews, investigations and enforcement actions; evaluate and influence legislative and regulatory reforms and other regulatory and public policy advocacy; prepare and present training and discipline;  handle workforce and related change management associated with mergers, acquisitions, reductions in force, re-engineering, and other change management; and a host of other workforce related concerns on both a real-time, “on demand” basis with crisis preparedness, intervention and response as well as ongoing engagements on compliance and risk management; plan and program design; vendor and employee credentialing, selection, contracting, performance management and other dealings; strategic planning; policy, program, product and services development and innovation; mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcy and other crisis and change management; management, and other opportunities and challenges arising in the course of workforce and other operations management to improve performance while managing workforce, compensation and benefits and other legal and operational liability and performance.

A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompasses advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.

Current ABA Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee Chair;  ABA International Section Life Sciences & Health Committee Vice Chair; ABA RPTE Section Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Past Group Chair and a current or past Chair of various of its committees, ABA Health Law Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Past Chair and , a Fellow in the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and the author of a multitude of highly regarded publications on wage and hour and other labor and employment, compensation and benefits, performance management and other related concerns, Ms. Stamer also is widely recognized for her extensive authorship, work and leadership on leading edge employment, health care, employee benefits and other compensation, benefits, health and safety, insurance and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns.

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see here or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ resources here such as the following:

PBGC Clarifies Multiemployer Plan Merger & Transfer Guidance

PBGC Simplifies Coverage Determination Process

Government Contractors Must Update NLRB Posters

$3.1M HIPAA Settlements in 1 Month Shows Risk Assessments Critical, But Often Inadequately Done

Health Plans Should Prepare For Plan Fallout Of HHS Rule Requiring Manufacturers Disclose Drug Prices

Congress Moves To Enact Federal Paid Leave Rules

$3 Million OCR Touchstone Settlement Warns Health Plans of Perils of HIPAA Violations

Employer Faces 5 Years Imprisonment For Not Paying Employment & Income Tax Withholding To IRS

Health Plans Must Share PHI To Apps When Members Request, Responsible For Security On Plan-Sponsored Apps

NLRA Not Violated By Employers Termination of Union Dues Withholding In Response To Wisconsin Right To Work Law

Federal Veterans Hiring Benchmark Resets 3/31 To 5.9%; Prepare For Audits & Other Enforcement

Consider Employee Recess In Your Employee Wellness Programi

Use 3/26 Diabetes Alert Day Resources To Jumpstart Your Diabetes Management & Cost Containment Efforts

Plan Ahead to Celebrate National Apprenticeship Week 11/12-18

CMS Hosts 11/6 Health Plan EDGE Server Webinar for Insurers & TPAs

Businesses Urged To Comment Positively On Proposed NLRB Joint Employment Rule By 12/13/18

Maintaining Current Enterprise Wide Security Risk Assessment Critical To Managing HIPAA Security Rule & Other Breach Risks

Record $16M Anthem HIPAA Settlement Signals Need to Tighten Your Health Plan HIPAA Compliance & Risk Management

Senate Confirms Charles Rettig As Next IRS Commissioner

House W&M Committee To Markup Retirement and Other “Tax Reform 2.0” Bills Thursday

Markup Tomorrow On Retirement & Other Republican‘s TCJA Tax Reform 2.0 Bills

Free Poster for Upcoming October National Disability Employment Awareness Month 2018 Available

Employer’s Employment Tax Fraud Indictment Warns Employers To Properly Pay Withheld Employment Taxes

Flurry of Reform Activity Sign Employers, Health Plans Should Prepare To Respond To Last Minute Health Reforms This Fall

Relationships Matter

OFCCP Extends TRICARE Affirmative Action Moratorium

Trump Blue Print To Reduce Drug Costs Announced

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.  We also invite you to register to receive future Solutions Law Press, Inc. updates here and join the discussion of these and other human resources, health and other employee benefit and patient empowerment concerns by participating and contributing to the discussions in our HR & Employee Benefits Compliance Group or COPE: Coalition On Patient Empowerment Group on LinkedIn or Project COPE: Coalition on Patient Empowerment Facebook Page.

NOTICE:  Copyright to the article set forth above is retained by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, who has granted Solutions Law Press, Inc. a limited nonexclusive license to republish this work but otherwise retains the copyright to this work and content.  These and other intellectual property rights are protected by federal and state law against unauthorized use or republication.  For information about republication or other use, contact the author.. 

These statements and materials are for general informational and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation in light of the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstance at any particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advise or an admission. The author reserves the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law is rapidly evolving and rapidly evolving rules makes it highly likely that subsequent developments could impact the currency and completeness of this discussion. The presenter and the program sponsor disclaim, and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify any participant of any such change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2019 Solutions Law Press, Inc. 

[1] A 2016 final rule to change the overtime thresholds was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, and was subsequently invalidated by that court. As of November 6, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held the appeal in abeyance pending further rulemaking regarding a revised salary threshold. As the 2016 final rule was invalidated, the Department has consistently enforced the 2004 level throughout the last 15 years.

 

Comments Off on Salary Threshold Increases Require Employer Review Of Salaried Worker FLSA Exemption Qualification | Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, Overtime, Wage & Hour, White Collar Exemption | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer