Royal

Texas Federal Court Vacates Department of Labor’s New Overtime Rule

November 20, 2024

On November 15, 2024 a federal judge in Texas vacated the Department of Labor’s (DOL) overtime rule from April 2024. This Rule promulgated by the DOL sought to raise the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum salary thresholds for white-collar overtime exemptions.


U.S. hourly workers, unless subject to narrow exemptions, are entitled to overtime pay (over 40 hours/week) under the federal law. Many workers who are salaried are exempt from that requirement unless their salary is below a certain amount.


The Plaintiffs in the current matter argued that the DOL’s 2024 increase would have rendered the Executive, Administrative and Professional (“EAP”) exemption moot, as the salary-level increase under the 2024 increase would have already been above that of the salary-based inquiry as an alternative to the EAP exemption. Effectively, the Court stated that because the salary level minimum exemption was raised higher, making more employees overtime-eligible, the DOL was eliminating consideration of the EAP exemption, exceeding the DOL’s authority granted under law.  


On July 1, 2024, the minimum salary level was raised, per the rule, to the equivalent of $43,888 per year. The minimum salary level was also set to increase on January 1, 2025 to $58,656 per year.


This ruling invalidated the July 1, 2024 salary increase as well as the salary adjustments that had been included in the April 2024 rule by the DOL nationwide. The salary exempt status will go back to $35,568 per year, a result of the 2019 DOL rule. This ruling will most likely be appealed, stay tuned for further updates.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

January 15, 2025
An employer brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse-of-process in response to a Wage Act suit brought by an employee. The Appeals Court cited that the employer’s counterclaims should have been dismissed under the anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law. Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide parties with a way to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits filed against them, usually in response to a lawsuit. The plaintiff in this case, an hourly laborer, claimed that his employer violated the Wage Act by failing to pay him for four of the six weeks he worked for them. The employer refuted these allegations, stating that the employee had only worked for two weeks, that he had been paid in full and then brought counterclaims of malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The District Court judge denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims under the anti-SLAPP law. When brought to the Appeals Court, the decision was reversed; the Appeals Court stated that the defendants did not meet the burden of showing that plaintiff’s claims lacked an objectively reasonable factual basis. This ruling suggests that it might behoove an employer to pause and wait to see if a plaintiff’s Wage Act claim fails before filing a counterclaim of abuse of process or malicious prosecution in response.  If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
January 8, 2025
Attorney Trevor Brice hosted a seminar on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, discussing the possible issues with current compensation plans and contingent compensation pitfalls made possible by recent court rulings. Some of the topics discussed included: Issues with current compensation plans under the FLSA Restrictive Covenants and Compensation Plans Problems with Commission-Based Compensation Plans and Possible Solutions When a Bonus is not actually a bonus and issues under the Massachusetts Wage Act This seminar was perfect for H.R. professionals and anyone in a management position. Please feel free to contact any of the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm if you have any questions on this topic!
Share by: