SimplyHR | Employment & Labor Blog 

The Missouri and Illinois legislatures were quite active in 2016 in creating laws affecting employers, and they have been just as busy in the first few weeks of 2017. Below is a summary of employment law developments that may affect your business in those states in the coming year. 

2016 was a busy year for employment law developments on a national level, and 2017 promises to follow suit. To help employers navigate the changes, here is a summary of major developments that may affect your business this year.

As employers are all aware, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)’s new overtime rules are set to take effect Dec. 1, 2016. The rule, projected to cover some 4.2 million workers, will raise the minimum salary threshold for overtime exemption 101 percent from its current rate of $455 per week to $913 per week.

Twenty-one states have filed suit against the federal government seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to block the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule and declare it unlawful.

In the 30-page complaint filed Sept. 20, 2016, the states allege that the Obama administration is trying to impose heavy costs and its own policy initiatives, in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. On March 13, 2014, President Barack Obama ordered the DOL to revise the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime exemption to account for the federal minimum wage. The DOL complied and released its final rule on May 18, 2016. 

On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released the final rule updating the regulations defining and limiting “white collar” overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). These rules apply to workers who fall under the executive, administrative, or professional exemptions from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime protections. The rule will go into effect December 1, 2016, giving employers over six months to adjust.

It is no secret that the U.S. Department of Labor is expected to release the final rules related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) soon — possibly sometime this month. The rules, which could make millions of more employees eligible for overtime, may also make compliance more difficult for employers and business leaders in their classification of employees.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) on Wednesday aimed to clarify the test it uses to determine whether workers are classified as employees or independent contractors for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Employers called to submit comments in next 60 days

After months of internal debates and conferences, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released the long-anticipated proposed overtime rule today. If implemented, the proposed rule will significantly expand overtime pay for Americans under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

With 2013 at its close, let’s take a peek at two cases currently pending in the United States Supreme Court that will have implications for employers in 2014.

Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.

On February 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a decision by the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that time spent donning and doffing protective gear, as well as time spent traveling from the locker room to work stations, constituted “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) §203(o), thus excluding the activities from being considered work time under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers union. The briefing is complete and the Supreme Court held oral argument on November 4, 2013, so a decision should be forthcoming soon.

Class and collective action lawsuits, particularly in the area of wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state law, continue to be on the rise and are difficult and costly for employers to defend. A newly decided case reminds us that employers should consider the use of mandatory arbitration agreements that waive class action lawsuits for employment disputes.