When Is A Seemingly Exempt Employee Not Truly Exempt?

02 January 2018 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Felicia S. O'Connor

Exemption rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are complicated and can often be frustrating for employers. Determining which employees in a workforce may or may not be exempt from entitlement to overtime pay requires a detailed analysis of complex regulations. The result of an employer’s analysis can be very consequential for the organization.  If an employee, or worse, a group of employees, are improperly classified as exempt the result can be liability for years of unpaid overtime. Investing time now in an analysis of your employees’ exemption statuses can save time and money down the road through the avoidance of the cost of unchecked improper classification.

A recent case in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) shows that even when an employee appears to meet the standard for exemption, a close reading of the rules is necessary. In the case, two welding inspectors sued their employer on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated welding inspectors  for failure to properly pay overtime, contending that they were improperly classified as exempt.  The employer determined that the welding inspectors were not entitled to overtime because they satisfied the FLSA’s exemption for highly compensated employees.  In the case, there was no dispute that during the time period in question the employees were paid above the required threshold for a highly compensated employee.  However, there is more to the analysis of the exemption for highly compensated employees than the total of their resulting pay.

Under FLSA regulations, an employee qualifies as an exempt “highly compensated employee” if three tests are met: (1) a duties test; (2) a salary-level test; and (3) a salary-basis test. The salary-basis test requires that the employee receives, on a regular basis, a predetermined amount which is not subject to reduction by the quality or quantity of the work done. In other words, the regular payments to the employee cannot be variable, and must be guaranteed despite the amount of time worked by the employee, or the quality of the employee’s work.

In the Sixth Circuit case, the employees were paid above the required threshold, and the evidence showed that during the time period in question, they were paid a consistent amount each pay period. To the average employer it may seem that the employer complied with the requirements of the FLSA.

So why did the Court of Appeals hold that the lower court was wrong when it dismissed the case in favor of the employer? The key to the Court of Appeals’ ultimate determination that the employees were non-exempt lies in the employees’ offer letters.  The offer letters stated the daily rate the employees would be paid: “$337.00/Day Worked.”  The company also communicated to the employees that they would be on a schedule of six 10-hour shifts per week.  However, because the pay was measured per day, which could have changed from pay period to pay period – even though it was consistently six days of pay in each pay period during the time in question – the court held that the amount paid per pay period was not guaranteed and could have been reduced based on the quantity of work done.  For this reason, the employees did not meet the salary-basis test, and were not exempt.

As this case shows, a close reading of FLSA exemption regulations is required to ensure that employees an employer believes should be exempt are truly exempt under the law.  Employers should periodically review the classifications of their employees, as well as the FLSA regulations, and consult with counsel when in doubt, in order to ensure compliance with the FLSA and avoid costly misclassifications.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Does The U.S. Need STRONGER Patents?
16 July 2019
PTAB Trial Insights
California Establishes Fund to Combat Wildfire Threats
15 July 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
There’s No Place Like Home – But Is That a Reasonable Accommodation?
15 July 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ