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.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. 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.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: