The Federal Department of Labor is seeking by Proposed Rulemaking to eliminate certificates that had allowed employers to pay productivity-based subminimum wages to workers with disabilities without violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Think it's a good idea?

Regardless, think Trump thinks it's a good idea? 

Interesting time to make such a change given that Trump likes that cheap labor regardless that the purpose of the curtailments was altruistic in creating opportunities for employment for the disabled. 

Anyway, you can share your thoughts on or before January 17, 2025, identified by Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1235-AA14, by either of the following methods:

• Electronic Comments: Submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Address written submissions to: Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.

In ruling that College Athletes may be entitled to sue for unpaid compensable work and recover minimum wages, plus double damages called liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees, for the prior 2-years (3-years if violations were found to have been willful), the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Johnson v. NCAA, held "that college athletes may be employees under the FLSA when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) “necessarily and primarily for the [other party’s] benefit,” Tenn. Coal, 321 U.S. at 598, (c) under that party’s control or right of control, id., and (d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits,” Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 471 U.S. at 301 (quotation omitted)."

This is the biggest decision to impact college sports since the NCAA responded to the SCOTUS decision in NCAA v. Alston by allowing athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness (NIL) with direct endorsement deals followed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) taking the position that college athletes are employees for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and forming unions / engaging in concerted activity. 

Yet, the biggest takeaway from Johnson v. NCAA isn't the newsworthy headline about college athletes, but instead, its analysis of what types of work must be paid, for everyone. 

Simply, the Circuit Court has instructed us that in most instances, "efforts that provide tangible benefits to identifiable institutions deserve compensation." In fact, the Circuit Court dispensed with the NCAA's nonsensical argument that the students were paid in other forms by receiving "increased discipline, a stronger work ethic, improved strategic thinking, time management, leadership, and goal setting skills, and a greater ability to work collaboratively" because those benefits "are all exactly the kinds of skills one would typically acquire in a work environment." In all, the Circuit instructed to always "look to the economic realities of the relationship," "upon the circumstances of the whole activity," when determining if a person is defined as an employee entitled to payment for work. Additionally, it is true that an employee must be promised or expect compensation for their work, but importantly, that compensation is not limited to money and can be instead, the receipt of in-kind benefits, where the promise or expectation can be implied and needn't be expressly stated / written. 

Johnson is a big win for unpaid workers everywhere in the US. 

Ready for a big jump in being entitled to overtime pay, which is 1.5 times pay?

The Department of Labor has set new effective earnings thresholds to be entitled to overtime pay per 29 CFR 541.  

Starting on January 1, 2025, we are moving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) from an entitlement to overtime pay for those making under $35,586 to those making under $58,656 per year ($1,128 per week). Note that this threshold does not apply to employees who are "bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . or in the capacity of [an] outside salesman," which terms are defined at 29 CFR 541.

These numbers are particularly important because a worker who is not paid properly can recover 2X back wages (liquidated damages) on unpaid overtime from the prior 2 years. 

Effective 9/6/2023, employers who steal wages are guilty of larceny under Penal Law 155. 

Per the bill's, A154A, justification, "[a]ccording to Cornell University's Worker Institute, wage theft in New York accounts for nearly $1 billion in lost wages each year and affects tens of thousands of workers - that's close to $20 million per week."

Yet, employees who experience wage theft should also remember that they can bring civil claims to get that stolen money back through the New York Labor Law and Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, together with liquidated damages and more. 

That means that if your employer takes your money or doesn't pay as frequently as required or doesn't pay overtime, you have rights to sue for your Wages and Hours.

If you are interested in wage and hour claims, or better yet if you are a business owner or manager, you are going to want to read this. 

On October 13, 2022, the Department of Labor opened the comment period, which runs through November 28, 2022, for it's revised analysis to determine if an individual is an employee or an independent contractor for a wage and hour claim (i.e., misclassification claim). As a reminder, independent contractors are also known as self-employed workers and freelancers, and are considered to be in business for themselves and therefore, not entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

However, if an employer gets this wrong, by considering an employee an independent contractor, tht employer can be subject to penalty, called liquidated damages, and more. It's a catastrophic mistake that really needs to be avoided at all costs. 

The Proposed Rulemaking is available here in full.

Comments can be made electronically at Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.

In summary, the Proposed Rulemaking is attempting to reassert the Economic Reality Test, where "[t]he ultimate inquiry is whether, as a matter of economic reality, the worker is either economically dependent on the employer for work (and is thus an employee) or is in business for themself (and is thus an independent contractor)." In analyzing the test, the following, non-exclusive facts are generally examined, including: "the opportunity for profit or loss, investment, permanency, the degree of control by the employer over the worker, whether the work is an integral part of the employer's business, and skill and initiative." Under the Proposed Rulemaking, the Department of Labor will examine the factors in the Economic Reality Test by returned to a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis rather than focusing on core factors. No longer will two factors be considered most probative and carry greater weight. Now, all factors matter and should be analyzed when determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee who is subject to rights under the FLSA.