Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Caps Off to You: DOL Proposes Raising Salary Cap
April 01, 2019

In 2014, the Obama administration proposed raising the minimum salary threshold for exempt white-collar workers to $47,476 per year— nearly double the current salary level. The Obama administration’s rule, which was intended to adjust the threshold to account for years of inflation, would have cost employers millions. But it was never approved. The salary threshold has continued to hold steady at $23,600 per year.

Fast forward to 2019, and the Trump administration has proposed a new rule. Currently in the comment period, the proposed rule would raise the standard salary level to $35,000. It includes other proposed changes as well:

  1. The standard salary level would increase to $35,000/year ($673/week).
    • Currently $23,600/year ($455/week).
    • The Obama administration rule would have increased to $47,476/year ($913/week).
  2. The salary level for highly compensated individuals (“HCE”) would increase to $147,414/year ($2,835/week).
    • Currently $100,000/year ($1,923.07/week).
    • The Obama administration rule would have increased to $134,004/year ($2,577/week).
  3. Employers would be permitted to use incentive compensation (commissions and non-discretionary bonuses) to partially meet the standard salary level requirement.
    • The incentive compensation limit would be 10 percent of regular salary. This would effectively lower the standard salary level to $31,500/year ($606/week), provided the employee received commission or bonuses sufficient to bring total compensation to $35,000/year.
    • This would apply for standard salary only; it does not apply to HCE.
  4. There would be no automatic adjustments to the salary threshold.
    • The proposed rule includes a commitment to periodic review to update the salary threshold. Any update would require notice and comment rulemaking. 
    • The Obama administration rule would have increased the salary threshold automatically every three years.
  5. There would be no changes to the duties test. 

The proposed rule can (and likely will) change before it becomes law. With the comment period slated to close May 21, 2019, what can employers do in the interim? Now is an excellent time to conduct a wage/hour audit. Identify employees who will no longer meet the salary level test, if the proposed rule becomes law, and consider strategies for responding to the proposed changes. This might include increasing the salary level for affected employees to retain exempt status, reclassifying employees as non-exempt and OT eligible, adjusting workloads and schedules to avoid OT and shift work to other workers, or hiring more part-time workers. Careful attention should be paid not only to salary, but also to the duties component of any exemption analysis. If the proposed rule becomes law, this time of change provides the opportunity for action to remedy inadvertent employee misclassification.
Related Practices
Labor & Employment Wage and Hour Banking, Commercial, and Consumer Finance Construction Health Care Real Estate
Related Industries
Banking, Commercial, and Consumer Finance Construction Health Care Real Estate Securities & Investment Companies
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.