DOL Overtime Proposals—Part II: Salary Change Consequences and “Discretionary” Bonus Clarification

08 April 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Kenneth C. Broodo

Double-Barreled Rulemaking. Last month, we commented on the Department of Labor’s (DOL) March 7, 2019, proposed rulemaking to increase the salary test threshold for overtime exemptions, potentially making another million or so people eligible for overtime pay. Next, in a companion rulemaking proposal, issued March 28, 2019, and summarized in our post last week, the DOL announced that it seeks to clarify how the “regular rate” is calculated for the purpose of calculating overtime.

Now What? Whether and when the new salary change will take effect is unknown—but it could be later this year, barring litigation delays such as we saw with the Obama administration’s attempt to effect similar changes. Applying the same calendar math, the regular rate changes could take effect later this year or in early 2020. Either way, it would be worthwhile for HR professionals to think ahead.

Salary Changes

The Choice. Many employers already adjusted in advance for what they thought would be more onerous Obama-era changes in 2016. For those who haven’t: For exempt employees making less than the proposed new threshold of $35,308 per year (subject to periodic review and changes), the change would present a choice between pay increases or reclassifying employees as nonexempt overtime workers. Considerations:

  • Audit-Adjusting. For employees of questionable exempt status, this will present an opportunity to self-audit, update internal review of FLSA compliance, and reclassify them as nonexempt. Increasing salary to meet the exemption may be best for people who are close to the new threshold anyway and who work a lot of overtime hours.
  • Unexpected Applications. Where salaried employees would move to overtime status, remote work via Citrix, emails and the like has to be reviewed—and clocked. In more liberal venues such as California, state rules that do not apply to salaried exempt folks will kick in, such as mandatory break rules.

Equivalent Options for Nonexempt. Salaried employees who are no longer exempt may present morale problems from the change to hourly worker status. There are lawful options for cushioning the blow. For example:

  • Salaried with Overtime. Protect “salaried” work status by keeping the employee’s pay on a salary basis (at the same rate) while punching the clock to track and calculate overtime. Employees with fairly fixed hours and relatively little overtime may be well-suited for this option.
  • Hourly with Overtime. Emphasize the benefits of overtime in converting the employee to an hourly rate, using an hourly rate that equates to his or her salary. Employees who regularly work overtime, but who are not close in pay to the new salary threshold may be best suited for this option.
  • Fluctuating Workweek and Fixed Workweek Options. For employees who will stay on a salaried basis but receive overtime, there are further options available for reducing the amount of overtime paid, in the form of fluctuating workweek or fixed workweek pay. These are potentially clever options but must be handled with care and need separate treatment.

Either way. Bear in mind: For salaried overtime workers, the special rules limiting the employer’s ability to dock the pay of exempt salaried workers would no longer apply. And employers will want to try and avoid the unintended consequence of hourly subordinates making more than their salaried nonexempt supervisors.

Regular Rate Changes

The Exclusions. Turning to the regular rate changes, the calculation of the baseline hourly rate for overtime purposes, termed the “regular rate” in wage and hour law, is based on all compensation received for employment, subject to the exclusions stated in the wage and hour statute—Section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act—or the FLSA.

Discretionary Bonuses. For the proposed regular rate changes in play, of primary concern on the change list: Discretionary Bonuses.

  • Need for Clarity. Even before the changes, “discretionary” bonuses did not count toward the regular rate. 29 C.F.R. §§ 778.208-211. But employers and courts often agonize over what “discretionary” means. The DOL wants to clarify it, with examples of discretionary bonuses that are excludable.
  • Employer Friendly? The proposed changes would try to add some guidance, if not necessarily greater clarity, for example, by stating that neither the “discretionary” label nor the reason for the payment are conclusive of whether a bonus is discretionary. The DOL would argue that this boundary can actually favor employers:

While attendance, work quality, and longevity bonuses, as those terms are commonly used, are usually paid pursuant to a prior contract, agreement, or promise causing the employee to expect such payments regularly, and therefore are non-discretionary bonuses that must be included in the regular rate, there may be instances when a bonus that is labeled as one of these types of bonuses is not in fact promised in advance and instead the employer retains discretion as to the fact and amount of the bonus until at or near the end of the period to which the bonus corresponds.”

Official Examples. If adopted, the regulations would add specific examples of bonuses that may be considered discretionary (adding to those already in the regs that are not discretionary), such as employee-of-the-month bonuses, bonuses for unique or extraordinary efforts with no pre-established criteria, severance bonuses, bonuses for overcoming difficult challenges, and the like—where “the fact and amount of payment is in the sole discretion of the employer until at or near the end of the periods to which the bonuses correspond and that are not paid “pursuant to any prior contract, agreement, or promise causing the employee to expect such payments regularly.”

  • Audit-Adjusting. While we wait for actual implementation, as we have discussed before, self-auditing is a highly cost-effective way to stay in compliance and identify where the coming changes would be of best strategic use.
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

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.