Employment Newsletter — Erickson & Sederstrom

Ryan Crew

 

Significant Changes in the Department of Labor's Overtime Rule and Their Impact on Exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Exemptions

On July 1, 2024, the United States Department of Labor's final rule, Defining and delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees, took effect. This rule updates and revises the regulations issued under section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). It is crucial for employers to review employee classifications and update or reclassify employees to comply with the new regulations. This article will briefly explain the FLSA and review its history, provide a short overview of the current FLSA rules and regulations, and give an overview of the changes to the exemptions.

The Fair Labor Standards Act

The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") is a federal United States labor law that creates the right to minimum pay and grants employees working overtime "time-and-a-half" pay when working over 40 hours a week. In addition, the FLSA prevents "oppressive child labor" by prohibiting the employment of minors. The Department of Labor ("DOL") is the federal agency tasked with enforcing labor laws, including the FLSA. The FLSA was originally published in 1983 and applies to all employees of enterprises having workers engaged in interstate commerce, producing goods for interstate commerce, or handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have been moved in or produced for such commerce by any person. [1] These rules and regulations are the minimum requirements with which states must comply, however, states can provide additional protections to employees through their own state laws. [2]Employers must comply with the FLSA and the other state requirements. Make sure to check with a local attorney to ensure you are complying with state laws/requirements. The FLSA is currently codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219.

Overview of the Current FLSA Rules and Requirements

Under the current structure of the FLSA, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour (as of July 2009). As stated above, states may have their own minimum wage requirements that guarantee employees a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum. In this instance, the employee is entitled to the higher minimum wage (in effect, no state can dip below the federal minimum; it can only grant a higher minimum wage).

In addition to the minimum wage requirements, there are overtime requirements in the FLSA. Covered nonexempt employees must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 per workweek. The FLSA sets the workweek at any fixed and regularly recurring period of 168 hours (i.e., seven consecutive 24-hour periods). The rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 per workweek is one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. There is no limit on the number of hours employees 16 years or older may work in any workweek as long as employees are being paid time and a half for all time worked over 40 hours per workweek. There is currently no federal requirement that employees be paid time and a half on holidays. States may add such a requirement, but the federal rules do not require time and a half on holidays. (Note: as of the writing of this article, August 30, 2024, there are only two states that require time and a half pay for employees on a holiday—Rhode Island and Massachusetts. You should check with a local attorney to ensure state requirements are being met).

As stated above, the FLSA applies to enterprises with workers engaged in interstate commerce, producing goods for interstate commerce, handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that have moved in interstate commerce. A covered enterprise performs these related activities through unified operation or common control by a person or persons for a typical business purpose and:

  1. Enterprises whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000 (exclusive of excise tax that is separately stated) or

  2. Engaged in the operation of a hospital or like institution; a school for the mentally ill; preschool, elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education; or

  3. An activity of a public agent.

Certain exemptions apply to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA. Some exemptions include minimum wage and overtime pay, exemptions from overtime pay only, and partial exemptions from overtime pay. The focus of this article is not to outline the whole of the list of exempt or partially exempt employees. Instead, the focus is to highlight the changes to one group of exemptions to both minimum wage and overtime pay:

Executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and certain computer employees (commonly referred to as "white-collar" or executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) exemption).

The regulations implementing this exemption have generally required that each of the following tests be met:

  1. The employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variation in the quality or quantity of work performed (the salary basis test).

  2. The salary must meet a minimum specified amount (the salary level test).

  3. The employee's duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties as defined by the regulations (the duties test).

The employer bears the duty to prove the applicability of the exemption.

New Overtime Rule and How It Changes the Previous Structure.

            On April 23, 2024, the DOL unveiled a new rule that significantly raised the minimum salary threshold for certain overtime exemptions under the FLSA. This rule had a profound impact on employees' entitlement to overtime pay and the employer compensation structure. The rule was enacted on July 1, 2024, with two sections becoming applicable beginning January 1, 2025.

The new DOL rule sets compensation thresholds for the white-collar/EAP exemptions by raising the salary minimum for these exempt employees. For instance, a marketing manager who previously earned $684 per week (or $35,568 annually) and met the specific job duty criteria outlined above to qualify as exempt from FLSA overtime requirements, will now need to earn $844 per week ($43,88 annually) to maintain the exemption. The new DOL rule maintains the exact job duty requirements to exempt employees from overtime pay under the FLSA.

Further, the new DOL rule increases the annual compensation threshold for employees classified as "highly compensated." Under the previous structure, the minimum annual compensation threshold for highly compensated employees was $107,432 annually, including a weekly salary of $684 and other minimum job duty requirements, to be classified as highly compensated and, therefore, exempt from overtime requirements. The new DOL rule increases the annual salary to $132,964, with a weekly salary minimum of $844 while maintaining the same job duty criteria.

The new DOL rule will also increase the minimum requirements on January 1, 2025, as follows:

-       $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually) for white-collar employees; and

-       $151,164 annual salary with a weekly salary of $1,128 for highly compensated employees.

After this initial period and starting on July 1, 2027, the new overtime rule will raise the standard salary thresholds for the FLSA overtime exemptions using the updated methodology, tied to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings in the lowest U.S. wage region based on current wage data. This increase will occur every three years after that.

Why Is This Important For Employers And What Should They Do?

            You may be wondering why this is important for employers. The consequences of misclassifying employees and failing to pay them overtime are great. Under the FLSA, employers that have misclassified employees as exempt may be liable for all unpaid overtime owed to the employee up to three years before the employee's claim. Additionally, courts may impose liquidated damages equivalent to the unpaid overtime (in effect, doubling the amount owed to the nonexempt employee). Employers found to willfully or repeatedly misclassify employees may have a civil penalty imposed up to $1,000 per violation and may be subject to criminal prosecution, depending on the severity of the violation. For this reason, it is vital that the employer carefully review employee classifications and update or reclassify employees who now do not meet the minimum threshold requirements discussed above. Employers should communicate any change in the employee's classification and ensure that there are systems in place to periodically review employee classifications as well as ensure other compliance strategies are in place. If any employer or employee has questions regarding these changes, would like to review their current employees' classification, or would like to create and implement compliance plans/strategies, the attorneys at Erickson Sederstrom have extensive experience in this field and

[1] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/compliance-assistance/handy-reference-guide-flsa#:~:text=Back%20to%20Top-,Who%20is%20Covered%3F,are%20covered%20by%20the%20FLSA.

[2] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage

Share

Employer Liability in the Age of Social Media

As of April 2023, there are an estimated 4.8 billion social media users worldwide, representing 59.9% of the global population and 92.7% of all internet users.1 Social media has become a daily staple in most Americans' lives. Users post daily routines, provide hourly updates on their activities, and detail countless other thoughts, updates, blogs, etc. This also includes references and information regarding their employment and activities related to their job. The average time spent on social media daily is 2 hours and 24 minutes, and the world collectively spends about 11.5 billion hours on social media daily.2 In addition to employee engagement on social media, employers have also become widely involved. According to Forbes, the social media app market in 2022 was valued at $49.09 billion.3 Most major brands and companies today maintain multiple social media accounts and advertise consistently on social media platforms. In fact, the total ad spending on social media platforms is projected to reach $219.8 billion in 2024.4 These staggering numbers show that social media usage is continuing to grow despite the already massive engagement. As such, employee and employer actions on social media will continue to impact the workforce moving forward significantly. This article will discuss some critical considerations for employers and employees to keep in mind while using and interacting on the numerous social media platforms now available to the public.

Legal Impacts: Liability from Corporate Speech on Social Media

As referenced above, most major brands and companies have a social media presence today, advertising and attempting to personify their brand. These posts, however, now provide a unique situation for companies involved in legal disputes. Posts from corporate or brand social media accounts can now be considered a form of corporate

speech and have most if not the same, liability risks as other forms of corporate speech (i.e., press releases, articles, memos, etc.). As such, any post made by an official company or brand's social media account can be used against a company to support claims of libel, defamation, false advertising, etc. For example, if a social media account makes a post that makes specific negative, false, or misleading claims regarding other businesses or individuals, the company could be held liable for defamation of character or libel. Likewise, an employee could potentially be held liable for making false or misleading posts on social media platforms disparaging their employer's name.

There are many real-world examples of employers and employees being sued for libel, defamation, false advertising, etc., for posts made on social media platforms. A very famous example of a lawsuit stemming from a social media post is the current lawsuit between Jimmy "MrBeast" Donaldson and Virtual Dining Concepts (from now on, "VDC"). According to Forbes, Donaldson (known online as "MrBeast) has 174 million YouTube subscribers and 86 million followers on TikTok as of August of 2023. The Donaldson entered into a contract with VDC to create his own "virtual restaurant" called "MrBeast Burgers." MrBeast Burgers only has a limited number of physical locations; primarily, the store is available for order and delivery from many popular delivery apps (e.g., DoorDash, UberEats, GrubHub, etc.). Instead, the food is made and prepared in previous existing restaurants and then picked up and delivered via the delivery apps. In June of 2023, Donaldson deleted his announcement video from the social media platform X, wherein he announced he was partnering with VDC to create MrBeast Burger. In a series of tweets on X, Donaldson explained that he believed he had signed a bad deal with VDC, as he alleged VDC was not concerned with providing high-quality products as he had planned. He further claimed VDC wouldn't let him stop his association with MrBeast Burger, although he alleged it was terrible for his brand. Due to his frustration, Donaldson filed suit against VDC, claiming, amongst other things, that VDC had breached its contract with Donaldson. In response to Donaldson's suit, VDC filed its own counterclaims against Donaldson, requesting damages for the disparaging comments made by Donaldson and seeking an injunction to preclude Donaldson from making further disparaging remarks. The case is currently being litigated in New York federal court.6 This case serves as an example of how both employer and employee can be affected by social media posts, despite the size or relative goodwill of the brand.

Privacy Concerns

In addition to the legal consequences social media posts by employees and employers may create, there are also several practical concerns. As with most online platforms, the number one concern is privacy. Social media platforms inherently require the input of personal information to create and maintain an account. Further, these companies routinely collect, track, and store personal data on user behaviors. Social media platforms use this to better target advertising to their users. They may even share this information with third-party entities. As such, it is essential to remember that when a company or brand, either employee or employer, logs onto a social media platform, it leaves behind data that the platform or third-party entities may collect.

In addition to the platform's data collection, social media also presents potential issues with hackers gaining access to the account. This can present numerous problems, such as posts made by individuals unassociated with the company, data or information leaks, potential access to company hardware and/or software, etc. Specifically, hackers gaining access to hardware containing company-sensitive data, client information, employee information, etc., is a real threat if certain precautions are not maintained. There are several examples wherein social media accounts were hacked, and negative or disparaging posts were made from the official brand's social media account. One example is Burger King's official Twitter account in February of 2013 when an individual hacked the official Twitter account of Burger King and made several disparaging posts, and changed the main page to claim a major competitor, McDonald's, was superior quality. The account was suspended and returned to Burger King the same day, but only after the brand suffered national embarrassment.7 In light of what could have happened, this was a minor impact, as no data or other information was leaked. Again, the potential danger or impact of hackers stealing information from social media is significant.

What Can You Do?

Clearly, brand and company engagement on social media platforms creates many risks for employees and employers. How, then, do employers address these risks? While avoiding the risk by avoiding social media platforms may be a simple answer, there is potential to reach unprecedented numbers of unrealized clients. Avoiding this hugely popular aspect of communication leaves money on the table. As such, all employers should have explicit social media policies regarding the type of content, engagement, advertising, etc., that can be posted on social media platforms, as well as clearly indicating which users are authorized to log on, access, and post from the employer's official account.

Further, specifying which devices can be used and working with an IT representative to ensure proper safeguards are in place regarding information and data on the authorized devices may help prevent some of the potential issues and negative impacts social media can have on employers. Furthermore, regular phishing and internet safeguard training for all employees will help prevent unintended consequences. A thorough social media policy and extensive training regimen are key for employers and employees in navigating this ever-changing online world.


THE GROWING USE OF AI: The Benefits and Risks Employers Should Consider.

Advancements in technology, specifically advancement in computer systems and their capabilities, have been key in driving and improving productivity in the workplace and are a vital reason we as a society have advanced so much in the past couple of decades. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a newer development in this area. Many people have preconceived notions of what AI is but have yet to learn how it works or the practical use of AI. In this article, we will explain what AI is, how it works, how it can be used in the workplace, and the dangers of using AI, specifically focusing on the benefits and risks AI poses to an employer.

WHAT IS AI AND HOW DOES IT WORK?

IBM defines AI as technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities.[1] This technology has recently been used to create artificial intelligence programs that generate dialogue when given prompts. One such example of this technology is Chat GPT, an AI chatbot that uses machine learning algorithms to process and analyze large amounts of data.[2] Chat GPT was created and released in 2022 by Open AI—a US company headquartered in San Francisco, California. Open AI was initially founded as a nonprofit company but restructured into a “capped profit” company in 2019, with the original non-profit entity controlling the new for-profit subsidiary.[3] Open AI states they are an “AI research and development company” with the mission to ensure that “artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.”[4]

Chat GPT allows users to have a conversation with the program and can specifically cater responses based on in-depth prompts given by the user. Chat GPT uses its enormous and extensive database to cater responses to the prompts the user provides. Chat GPT’s answers sound almost human, and the tone can be changed when requested. Chat GPT can now even analyze and understand images, create its own images when given a prompt, understand vocal prompts, and respond with a voice of its own, according to Open AI’s website.[5]

HOW CAN CHAT GPT OR OTHER AI CHATBOTS BE USED IN THE WORKPLACE?

Because Chat GPT has such an expansive database, Chat GPT can be used in almost any way imaginable. On the most basic level, employees can use Chat GPT to write reports, analyze data, fix code, draft articles, summarize documents, reply to customers, draft press releases or speeches, and the list goes on and on. The possibilities with Chat GPT and other AI chatbots are seemingly endless. Some websites have even incorporated similar AI chatbots in their websites to analyze and respond to customer service requests (e.g., the “chatbox” attached to many cell phone and internet provider websites). Some more advanced examples of the use of Chat GPT or similar AI chatbots include stock traders' and asset managers' use of AI to analyze and predict stock market trends and company data and make recommendations based on such predictions. In terms of the workplace, Chat GPT can do all of these things quicker and more efficiently than humans thereby greatly improving work productivity.  With the wide application and use of Chat GPT and other AI chatbots, what is the downfall or risk of using such technology?

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH AI AND HOW TO COMBAT:

While Chat GPT and other AI technologies have seemingly infinite uses that may greatly improve work productivity and efficiency, some significant risks and issues can greatly affect society as a whole and, more specifically, employers whose employees are freely using AI.

One of the biggest opponents of unchecked and unsafeguarded AI is the famous businessman and billionaire, Elon Musk. Elon Musk takes issue with the fact that AI, according to him, is on pace and may soon take over human’s level of intelligence.[6] Elon Musk believes that certain safeguards need to be in place to prevent AI from surpassing human intelligence, namely open-sourcing AI so that any one person or corporation does not control AI and to tie the bots closely to humans so that it is “an extension of the will of individuals, rather than systems that could go rouge and develop their own goals and intentions.”[7] Musk, an original founder and backer of Open AI, has recently sued Open AI for allegedly breaching their contractual agreements by pursuing profits in a San Francisco court.[8]

In addition to these fundamental and thought-provoking issues raised by Elon Musk, AI also poses specific risks to employers/employees as well. First, and maybe most important, is the risk of bias. AI (as of now) is programmed and maintained by humans. If those controlling AI wanted, they could efficiently train data or design the algorithms of these chatbots to incorporate bias or push an agenda. Often, these chatbots make statements as if they were facts as well. Without understanding such bias, AI can potentially push a biased agenda and cloak it as fact.

Another primary concern is privacy. AI technologies generally utilize large amounts of data, specifically personal data, to operate correctly. A breach, leak, sale, or other transmittal (voluntary or involuntary) of the data both used by AI and given to AI in prompts could greatly harm individuals and corporations, especially if the information provided to such technologies is unregulated and unchecked. For this reason, employers must incorporate their own guidelines and procedures to prevent the uncontrolled relay of their own or their client’s information to AI technologies.

Finally, plagiarism, misinformation, and other incorrect bases of information present significant issues for AI. AI uses large amounts of data to generate the information asked of it. Similar to bias, if false information is used or fed to the technology, the entire work product of the AI technology could be flawed. A recent case out of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York proved this fear to be well-founded. Specifically, in Roberto Mata v. Avianca, Inc., (Case No. CI 22-cv-1461 (PKC)), attorneys who submitted a brief written by Chat GPT were sanctioned.[9] The brief included citations to opinions and cases that were non-existent and even included fake quotes from the non-existent cases and opinions.[10] The presiding judge issued the attorneys a $5,000 fine because they failed to fulfill their gatekeeping role and ensure their filings’ accuracy.[11] Clearly, when Chat GPT gives false, misleading, or even non-existent information, citation, quotes, etc. as fact, this can mislead employees and cause them to submit, file, represent, etc. false information that could harm their employer legally, financially, and reputationally.

WHAT CAN EMPLOYERS DO?

Considering the above risks, how, then, can employers protect themselves? The seemingly simple and most obvious answer is to ban AI from being used by employees. However, this is probably not the answer because your employees are likely already using AI and may continue to use it. Further, AI technologies like Chat GPT have their specific benefits. They can increase work productivity in many ways (e.g., reviewing great amounts of data quickly, producing in-depth summaries of long documents, using past data to predict future outcomes, etc.). This can save employers time and money. For these reasons, having a clear set of guidelines and specific training for employees on how employees are permitted to use AI can help both prevent instances of damage caused by AI. It can shield employers against potential third parties or clients who may claim the company harmed them through the use of AI.


[1] https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence 

[2] https://uca.edu/cetal/chat-gpt/

[3] https://openai.com/our-structure

[4] https://openai.com/about

[5] https://openai.com/chatgpt

[6] https://time.com/6310076/elon-musk-ai-walter-isaacson-biography/

[7] Id.

[8] https://www.courthousenews.com/elon-musk-sues-openai-over-ai-threat/

[9] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/22/judge-sanctions-lawyers-whose-ai-written-filing-contained-fake-citations.html

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

Share