HR Tips
New rules and guidance

DOL publishes final overtime rule

The final rule includes an increase to the EAP salary threshold, changing from $684 per week ($35,568 annually for a full-year hourly worker) to at least $844 per week ($43,888 per year) starting July 1, 2024. This amount will be raised again on January 1, 2025, to $1,128 per week (or $58,656 annually) - a nearly 65 percent increase from the current levels that went into effect in 2020. For highly compensated employees, on July 1, 2024, the salary threshold will rise from $107,432 to $132,964 per year. Then, on January 1, 2025, it will rise to $151,164. Additionally, the final rule will include a three-year automatic adjustment mechanism for updating the salary threshold. No changes have been made to the duties test.

Millions of additional workers will be eligible for overtime under this rule and employers need to act quickly to adjust their pay practices. The options are to increase salaries to the new level, reclassify employees as non-exempt and pay overtime or structure workloads to preclude overtime hours.

It's noteworthy that the change can affect workers compensation premiums, depending upon the rules for treating overtime pay in your state. Apart from four states (Pennsylvania, Delaware, Utah, and Nevada), overtime pay can be reduced to straight time when determining the workers comp premium, so it's important to keep adequate records of overtime. Keep an eye on your projected payroll for your workers' comp policy to avoid underestimated payroll charges at the year-end audit.

This is a federal rule and employers must comply with applicable state laws as well.

EEOC publishes final rule for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has published a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which will go into effect June 18. The finalized rule contains a very broad definition of "pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions," including abortion accommodations, which is expected to be controversial. The PWFA is much broader than the ADA. Someone is qualified if their inability to perform the essential functions is just temporary and the essential functions can be performed "in the near future," which generally means about 40 weeks. Also, there's no threshold for the severity of the physical or mental conditions for accommodation requests.

NLRB General Counsel issues guidance memo on "Securing Full Remedies for All Victims of Unlawful Conduct"

An April 8, 2024, Memorandum issued by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, advises regional offices to pursue "the full panoply of remedies available to ensure that victims of unlawful conduct are made whole for losses suffered as a result of unfair labor practices." This expansive directive seeks to ensure make-whole remedies are pursued on behalf of all employees, regardless of whether they are identified during an unfair labor practice (ULP) investigation or not.

The NLRB has greatly expanded what constitutes an unlawful work rule or contract term, including common employer policies on confidentiality, moonlighting, at-will employment, dress code, and others. Because any work rule deemed unlawful could now impact an employer's entire workforce, this could mean substantial additional costs for employers. Accordingly, employers should continue to reevaluate their work rules and contract terms with employees and consider whether these are likely to be interpreted to restrict Section 7 activities.

US Supreme Court decision makes it easier to bring certain workplace discrimination lawsuits

In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a unilateral job transfer could be challenged as discrimination under Title VII, where the position had the same pay and title but changed the employee's schedule, overtime opportunities, and other conditions of employment. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but the harm need not be significant. The decision could lead to an increase in workplace discrimination lawsuits as it sets a lower threshold for proving harm.