A group of 21 states (“the States”) has filed a Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas challenging the new regulations from U.S. Department of Labor that re-define the white collar exemptions to the overtime requirements of the FLSA. The States argue the DOL overstepped its authority by, among other things, establishing a new minimum salary threshold for those exemptions.
Pursuant to the new regulations from the U.S. Department of Labor, effective December 1, 2016:
- the salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional exemption will effectively double from $23,660 ($455 per week) to $47,476 ($913 per week);
- “Highly Compensated Employees” (“HCEs”) must earn annual compensation of at least $100,000; and
- an indexing mechanism will be applied to automatically update the salary threshold and the HCE compensation requirement every three years.
The Complaint challenges each of the new regulations, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Salary Threshold Allegedly Violates the FLSA
The Complaint filed by the States points out that the FLSA itself makes no reference any salary threshold, but rather speaks only to the duties of exempt employees.
Specifically, the plain language of 29 U.S.C. §213 states that the FLSA’s overtime requirements do not apply to “any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity…” The Complaint states that the statute “speaks in terms of ‘activities,’ not salary.”
The new salary threshold would take away the exempt status of millions of executive, administrative and professional employees. On that basis, the Complaint alleges that the new regulations violate the FLSA and are an improper exercise of legislative power by an Executive agency.
The Complaint also alleges that the language of the FLSA does not allow for (i) the salary basis test itself, (ii) the distinct compensation threshold for highly compensated employees or (iii) the indexing mechanism in the new regulations that would automatically update the salary threshold.
The Complaint notes that DOL regulations have provided for a salary threshold at some level since 1940, but suggests that the DOL’s authority to do so was never challenged.
The Tenth Amendment Allegedly Precludes Applying the Regulations to the States
The Complaint further alleges that the new salary threshold violates the Tenth Amendment by allowing the Executive Branch to infringe upon state sovereignty and federalism by dictating the wages that States must pay to their own employees.
The Complaint admits that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the application of the FLSA to the states, but suggests that the issue should be revisited in light of the new regulations and the burdens they impose on the 21 States seeking relief.
Moreover, the Complaint points to the potential for future abuse through the application of a salary threshold to States. Because “there is apparently no ceiling over which DOL cannot set the salary level,” the DOL could raise the salary threshold however it sees fit. The Complaint therefore contends that the Executive Branch could “deplete State resources, forcing the States to adopt or acquiesce to federal policies, instead of implementing State policies and priorities.”
The New Regulations Allegedly Violate the APA
The Complaint proceeds to contend that (i) the automatic updates to the salary threshold and HCE compensation requirements violate the notice-and-comment requirements of the federal Administrative Procedure Act and the FLSA’s requirement that the white collar exemptions be “defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary ….”; and (ii) the new regulations are arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA.
More than 50 business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation filed a separate lawsuit in the same court and on the same day. The business groups also contending the new DOL regulations were implemented in violation of the APA.
The States lawsuit alleges some novel and interesting theories to challenge the Department of Labor’s new regulations, and the District Court’s response to these claims bears watching as the effective date of the new regulations draws near.