New exempt salary threshold struck down: Why a judge said the feds’ rule had ‘gone seriously awry’

November 26, 2024  |  Robert J. Hingula

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this commentary are the author’s alone. Robert J. Hingula is employment class and collective actions co-chair at Polsinelli’s Kansas City office. He primarily focuses his practice on trial and counseling work involving labor and employment law.

This commentary was originally published by Polsinelli.

[divide]

Employers have been waiting with bated breath on the challenges to the U.S. Department of Labor’s newest salary increase for exempt employees scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025. On Nov. 15, U.S. District Court Judge Sean Jordan for the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgement in Texas v. Dept. of Labor — striking down the DOL’s April 2024 rule.

As a brief recap, in late April 2024, the DOL proposed two increases to the minimum salary threshold for the FLSA’s executive, administrative, and professional exemptions (known as the White Collar Exemptions). At the time of the new rule, the salary threshold was set at $684 per week, or $35,568 per year. The rule made the first increase starting July 1, 2024, of $844 per week ($43,888 annually), and the second increase starting on January 1, 2025, of $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually).

While there were several challenges before the July 1, 2024 increase, three courts that had challenges before them did not issue injunctive relief to prevent that increase from going into effect.

In his order, Judge Jordan found that the DOL’s rule exceeded its authority. Specifically, Jordan found that while the DOL can use salary as a part of its authority to define the requirements of the White Collar Exemptions, the salary test “is not included in the statutory text,” and is “not unbounded.” He stated that the salary threshold cannot “displace” the duties tests for each of the White Collar Exemptions.

In using the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in his reasoning, Jordan examined the impact of the salary threshold increases compared to prior adjustments, specifically the latest increase in 2019. He found that the new salary increases did not just screen out those employees who were clearly non-exempt, but also resulted in disqualifying significant portions of employees who would otherwise meet the applicable duties tests. For example, the judge calculated that the July 2024 increase alone resulted in a third of prior exempt employees being disqualified from the exemption.

“When a third of otherwise exempt employees who the Department acknowledges meet the duties test are nonetheless rendered nonexempt because of an atextual proxy characteristic — the increased salary level — something has gone seriously awry.”

Jordan’s ruling completely strikes the April 2024 rule on a nationwide basis — including the increases that occurred on July 1, 2024. Thus, the salary threshold is reverted back to the $684 weekly ($35,568 annually) amount.

The DOL can appeal the decision, but with the upcoming change in presidential administration, it is uncertain what the DOL’s next step will be.

Tagged ,
Featured Business
    Featured Founder
      [adinserter block="4"]

      2024 Startups to Watch

        stats here

        Related Posts on Startland News

        UMKC experts: Self-disruption challenges a modern fashion industry in flux

        By Tommy Felts | May 16, 2019

        Editor’s note: This article is sponsored by the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Regnier Institute. The opinions expressed in this commentary are the authors’ alone. [divide] When thinking of the fashion industry, the first thing that (rightfully) comes to most people’s minds is the final garment on the shelf. However, there are a tremendous number of…

        UMKC’s Mendes: Avoiding ‘The C Word’? Your startup’s vision could pay the price

        By Tommy Felts | May 10, 2019

        Editor’s note: This article is sponsored by the University of Missouri-Kansas City’s Regnier Institute. The opinions expressed in this commentary are the author’s alone. Dr. Tony Mendes is a teaching professor with UMKC’s Henry W. Bloch School of Management, and a managing director for UMKC’s Regnier Institute. [divide] You’ve probably met at least one person…

        Zach Pettet: Henry Bloch gave KC a legacy to believe in; now it’s our turn to make him proud

        By Tommy Felts | April 30, 2019

        Editor’s note: Zach Anderson Pettet is vice president of FinTech strategy at nbkc bank and managing director of Fountain City FinTech. Opinions expressed in this commentary are the author’s alone. [divide] Henry Bloch made an immeasurable impact on Kansas City. The H&R Block co-founder’s April 23 death shook many of us; though we knew it…

        The lurking threat against entrepreneurs — and how to level the playing field

        By Tommy Felts | April 15, 2019

        Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in this commentary are the author’s alone. Brad Wilders is a partner at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP in Kansas City. [divide] A Wisconsin inventor designed a device to remove surgical fluid from operating tables. He won the prize many entrepreneurs seek: His device was patented and sold to a sophisticated…