Posts

Department of Labor files overtime exemption brief with Fifth Circuit

In a brief filed with the Fifth Circuit of the Federal Court of Appeals, USDOL seeks to preserve salary level in determining overtime exemption status.

 

On Friday, June 30, the United States Department of Labor filed a brief with the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans seeking to preserve a minimum salary requirement as a part of a three-part test to determine which workers are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime pay protections.

The three-part test, referred to as EAP, (executive, administrative, professional) relates to whether a worker is:

  1. Paid on a salary basis
  2. Earns a specified salary level
  3. Satisfies a duties test

The brief filed Friday concerns the second part.

The brief was filed in the case of Nevada v. DOL , 5th Cir., No. 16-41606 by the State of Oklahoma and 20 other states questioning whether the DOL under President Obama had the authority to set the annual salary threshold at $47,476, just over double the amount previously set in 2004 by the Bush Administration.

The Trump Administration brief asks the court to uphold DOL’s legal authority to set the salary threshold, but does not address the appropriate salary level, stating that the court should “simply lift the cloud” created by litigation questioning the Department’s authority to establish any salary level test.

“Instead, the department soon will publish a request for information seeking public input on several questions that will aid in the development of a proposal,” the agency stated it its brief.

To view the brief, click this link.

 


Sign up for our Employment E-Alert mailing list

* indicates required






(UPDATE) A look at the controversial Affordable Care Act on its fifth anniversary

By Mary Holloway Richard. View her attorney profile here.


Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in health care law in Oklahoma. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families. She also has significant experience in representing providers in regulatory matters.

Mary Richard is recognized as one of pioneers in health care law in Oklahoma. She has represented institutional and non-institutional providers of health services, as well as patients and their families. She also has significant experience in representing providers in regulatory matters.

(Updated 4/7/15)
President Obama has taken the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) to characterize continued activities on the Hill to repeal it as renegade special interest activities. The ACA continues to be a subject of debate both in terms of its accomplishments—how many are newly covered and how much will be saved—and in terms of its public support.

While the Associated Press reported on March 23, 2015, that public support was down 5% since its passage, as one who daily writes and advises health care clients on matters related to the ACA, I can say with certainty that the depth and breadth of increased regulation spawned by the ACA are changing the nature of the system.

Those changes include responsive movement toward integrated health systems, mergers and affiliations; transition from quantity- to quality-based reimbursement; the relaxation of HIPAA standards in some respects and its tightening in others in the context of EHR transformation; and increased direct and indirect costs to employers as a result of new responsibilities.

Nearly fifty changes have been made to the ACA as of March 2, 2015, and this suggests a continuing need for providers, employers and business owners to remain informed and responsive to the moving regulatory compliance target.

On Monday, March 30 the Supreme Court rejected a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)  that targeted the Independent Payment Advisory Board (“IPAB”), a 15-member government panel which has been characterized as a “death panel” because of its intended role in cutting Medicare costs.   The IPAB was to convene when the target growth rate for Medicare (3.03%) is exceeded.  However, the growth rate is 1.15% according to CMS, and so the administration has not nominated any panel members.  In declining to take up the case, the Supreme Court left undisturbed the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco dismissal of the lawsuit. The proponents of the ACA are calling this a win.  Coons v. Lew, No. 14-525.   Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court on March 30, 2015.