7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals Rules ADA does not Require "Extended" Leave - But 9th Circuit Still Does

Extended Leave and the ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that employers provide “reasonable accommodations” for employees with disabilities unless the employer can demonstrate that an accommodation would cause undue hardship. The EEOC has argued that extended leave can be a reasonable accommodation and has brought suit where employers have a policy of automatically terminating employees after a specified period of leave. The EEOC also identifies leave as a potential accommodation in its regulations and enforcement guidance. This reasonable accommodation under the ADA, in the EEOC’s view, is in addition to an employee’s right to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft

Our Legislative Alert covers a recent decision out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which disagreed with the EEOC’s position. In Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Seventh Circuit ruled that extended leave is not required under the ADA. The Court reasoned that the ADA was a statute that prevented discrimination and not one that mandated leave like the FMLA. The Court concluded that an ADA reasonable accommodation “is one that allows the disabled employee to ‘perform the essential functions of the employment position’” and that “not working is not a means” to that end. Therefore, in the Seventh Circuit’s view, a two to three month period of leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The Court, however, noted that briefer or intermittent periods of leave, such as days or weeks, could be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA in some circumstances.

Takeaways

The Seventh Circuit’s decision only affects employers in Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois. Employers subject to the ADA in other states should be aware that other federal court decisions may apply to them. For example, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First and Ninth Circuits have issued decisions holding that multi-month leave periods were reasonable accommodations under the ADA. 

As mentioned, the EEOC’s position is that extended leave can be a reasonable accommodation. Employers outside of the Seventh Circuit that are subject to the ADA should review federal court decisions regarding reasonable accommodations that apply in their states and confer with their legal counsel especially if they automatically terminate employees after a specified period of leave.

Our legislative alert provides an overview, action steps and considerations for employers as well as the background of Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft.

5 Ways to Keep Your Healthcare Costs Down

88% of Patients Who Sought a 2nd Medical Opinion for a Complex Condition Had a New or Refined Diagnosis & Treatment Plan

Whenever your diagnosis is anything beyond a minor matter, it pays to get a second opinion. 

From Employee Benefit News:

When an employee faces a serious health problem or is told he or she needs surgery, seeking a second opinion from another physician can, in some cases, have a significant impact on their diagnosis, treatment plan or prognosis.
But too few patients seek second opinions, and it’s causing issues for both employees and employers. 

A Gallup poll found that 49% of the 5,000 survey respondents said they never seek a second opinion when their physician diagnoses a condition, prescribes a new medication or treatment, or recommends surgery. Not seeking a second opinion in the case of a serious, complex, or rare diagnosis or recommendation for elective surgery is a missed opportunity to lower the risk of misdiagnosis and inappropriate or ineffective treatment. 

A recent study by health policy researchers at the Mayo Clinic found that as many as 88% of those who sought a second opinion for a complex medical condition at the Mayo Clinic had a new or refined diagnosis that changed their treatment plan. In contrast, only 12% of those patients received confirmation that their diagnosis was correct and complete. 

In addition to the harm caused to patients by misdiagnoses that may have been avoided if a second opinion was sought, there’s also a financial impact. The Institute of Medicine reports that approximately $750 billion is wasted each year in the U.S. on unnecessary medical services and other inefficiencies. Employers also bear the impact in the form of the absence or loss of experienced employees, lowered productivity, and increased insurance payouts. ...

   

Premiums in Obamacare Exchanges Now Up 10% to 20% More After Administration Ends Unlawful Insurance Bailouts/Subsidies

PPACA creates two different primary mechanisms to redistribute taxpayer dollars to insurers and enrollees to reduce the cost of insurance for Exchange enrollees.  As Josh Blackman describes over at Cato:

[W]hile the ACA funds the subsidies under Section 1401 with a permanent appropriation, to date, Congress has not provided an annual appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies under Section 1402. Once again, where Congress would not act, President Obama did so unilaterally. The executive branch pretended that the ACA had actually funded Section 1402 all along, and it paid billions of dollars to insurers. Once again, Mr. Trump is exactly right that this is a “BAILOUT.” And, once again, the payments are a violation of the separation of powers. 

Last year, a federal court ruled that Congress did not “squeeze the elephant of Section 1402 reimbursements into the mousehole of Section 1401.” Mr. Obama’s policy “violates the Constitution,” the court concluded. “Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.” 

This case, brought by the House of Representatives, now hovers in a state of limbo. The Trump Justice Department has not yet signaled whether it would continue the appeal begun by its predecessor. If the government is serious about repudiating pen-and-phone governance, it should announce that the payments are illegal and drop the appeal. This decision will no doubt trigger litigation by ACA supporters, but the far more obvious choice rests with the elected branch.

Yesterday, President Trump announced that he was stopping those cost-sharing subsidy payments.  This hastens the demise of the ACA Exchanges by further elevating premiums for those enrollees selecting Silver plans in the Exchanges by 10% to 20% more  (above and beyond the 12% to 60% premium increases already slated) in 2018.

In California, for example, Exchange plans were to increase by 12.5% in 2018, without these additional payments to reduce the cost of Silver plans (the most common Exchange plan, where about 60% of enrollees end up) will go up 25% instead.

In Idaho, Silver plans were to increase by 20%.  This change will elevate those plans now by 40%.

Other states are much worse off.  Georgia, with rates that are 57% higher than last year, tops the list.  While many of Florida's premiums will be 45% higher in 2018.  And these increases are before yesterday's announcement that the cost-sharing subsidies will be eliminated meaning Florida and George enrollees can safely tack another 10% to 20% onto the cost of their Silver Plans in 2018.

This impacts families making between 135% (or 100% in states that didn't expand Medicaid) and 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) as only those families making 250% or less of FPL were eligible for these subsidies.  Some estimates peg that as high as half or more all Exchange enrollees even though this only impacts Silver Plans. Only Silver Plans qualify for these extra cost sharing reduction subsidies under Section 1402.

This means that in the Exchanges, families of four making approximately $33,000 to $61,000 and couples making $22,000 to $40,000 will be impacted negatively.

Constitutionalists and fiscal hawks will undoubtedly applaud this decision as it eliminates one more form of redistribution under the ACA while adhering back to the separation of powers and ending an unlawful, unilateral, executive action made by the last administration.

However, proponents of the ACA and popular media have and will pan the move as being cold-hearted, mean-spirited and outside of the intent of PPACA by increasing the costs to the very Americans who can afford it least: those at the lower end of the pay scale; but just outside of the reach of Medicaid eligibility.

This is the equivalent of tossing one more grenade into the already beleaguered foxhole of Obamacare.  To the extent that this hastens real, practical, meaningful reforms to our health insurance markets, it will ultimately lead to insurance premium relief.  But doing this days before open enrollment and knowing it will likely mean that about $2 million fewer people will be able to afford healthcare is going to make this a public relations and political nightmare if our politicians can't come together to start to put real fixes in place in the next few months.

I was on the Armstrong and Getty Radio Program this morning discussing this topic. 

 

For more on that comment by Senator Ted Cruz regarding the doubling of insurer profit under Obamacare, see, "Insurers' Profits Have Nearly Doubled Since Obama Was Elected."

   

Administration and Congressional Leadership Release Tax Reform Plan

On Sept. 27, 2017, the Trump administration—in conjunction with Congressional leadership—released a tax reform plan designed to make significant changes to the federal tax code. This plan is intended to serve as a template for the Congressional tax writing committees that will develop tax reform legislation.

This tax reform plan was collectively developed by the Trump administration, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, and the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance. It includes only broad policy directives, with the expectation that Congress will provide more detail when drafting its tax reform legislation.

The tax reform plan would make significant changes for businesses and employees. For example, the tax plan would:

• Create a new lower tax rate structure for small businesses—The plan would limit the maximum tax rate for small and family-owned businesses conducted as sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations to 25% from 40%. It also directs committees to adopt measures to prevent the recharacterization of personal income into business income to prevent wealthy individuals from avoiding the top personal tax rate.

• Lower the corporate tax rate—The plan would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, and would eliminate the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), in an effort to make American corporations more competitive globally.

• Allow “expensing” of capital investments—The plan would allow businesses to immediately write off (or “expense”) the cost of new investments for at least five years.

• Repeal or restrict many existing business deductions and credits—Because the plan would substantially reduce the tax rate for all businesses, it would eliminate the existing domestic production (Section 199) deduction, and would repeal or restrict numerous other special exclusions and deductions. However, the plan explicitly preserves business credits related to research and development and low-income housing.  

The elimination of certain deductions — in favor of doubling the standard deduction (below) — could eventually cause taxes for many people to increase.  "By 2027, taxes would rise for roughly one-quarter of taxpayers, including nearly 30 percent of those with incomes between about $50,000 and $150,000 and 60 percent of those making between about $150,000 and $300,000," said a Tax Policy Center report.

• End “offshoring” incentives—The plan would end the incentive to offshore jobs and keep foreign profits overseas by exempting them when they are repatriated to the United States. It would impose a one-time, low tax rate on wealth that has already accumulated overseas so there is no tax incentive to keep the money offshore.

• Repealing the estate or death tax.

• Simplifying the individual tax rate structure to 12, 25, and 35%.  

• The other main tax cut in the plan is a doubling of the standard deduction, which would not do much for growth but would simplify the system.  

The tax reform plan provides broad flexibility to Congressional tax writing committees in implementing these changes, as well as establishing additional reforms, when drafting their legislation. As a result, it is unclear whether these reforms will be included in any future tax reform bill.

Two Republican Senators have already expressed negative sentiment over the proposal.  Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky became the second Republican senator to publicly express doubts about the plan. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said Sunday that if it looked like the plan was "adding one penny to the deficit, I am not going to be for it."

We will continue to monitor the tax reform process for any future updates.

  

Compliance Update: Newly Adopted Wage Equity Laws

Highlights: 

• New York and Delaware amended current laws making salary history inquiries an unlawful discriminatory practice.  
• Oregon, Delaware, Massachusetts and San Francisco adopt new wage equity laws.
• A number of other states and major cities are considering similar laws.

Effective Dates: 

• October 1, 2017 - New York City and Oregon
• December 1, 2017 - Delaware
• July 1, 2018 - Massachusetts and San Francisco
• January 1, 2019 - Oregon (protected classes)

---

Overview

In an effort to close the wage gap that exists between male and female employees, a number of states and major cities have recently adopted wage equity and salary history laws. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2016, the average female employee earned 80 cents for every dollar a man received during the same period. Statistics suggest the gap may be even greater for ethnic or racial minority employees.

When applicable, employers must comply with their state and local laws in addition to the Federal Equal Pay Act. When both federal and local laws differ, the law that provides the greater protection or benefit to the employee applies.

Employer Action Steps

• Eliminate prohibited salary history inquiries.
• Update job applications and other employment forms to comply with pay equity laws.
• Train recruiters and hiring managers regarding applicable pay equity laws.

State Laws
New York City Effective date: Oct. 1, 2017	An amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law prohibits employers from inquiring into a candidate’s salary history as an unlawful discriminatory practice. Covered Employers: New York City employers and employment agencies with four or more employees. Individuals employed by a parent, spouse or child, and individuals engaged in domestic service are not considered employees under this amendment. Covered Individuals: Candidates and new hires during the hiring process, except internal transfers or promotions, when public employees’ salaries are determined by collective bargaining or when disclosure of salary history is mandated by law. Requirements: A covered employer is prohibited from inquiring about or relying on a candidate’s salary history when determining a salary offer.
Oregon Effective dates: Salary inquiries Oct. 1, 2017 Protected classes and posting requirements    Jan. 1, 2019	In addition to prohibiting salary history inquiries, the Oregon Equal Pay Act of 2017 extends pay equity protections to nine additional protected classes. Covered Employers: All Oregon employers. Covered Individuals: All Oregon job applicants. Requirements: Effective Oct. 1, 2017, employers are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant’s salary history. Effective Jan. 1, 2019, employees who perform comparable work cannot be paid different pay rates based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, veteran status, disability or age.
Delaware Effective date: Dec. 1, 2017	An amendment to Title 19 of the Delaware Code prohibits employers from asking a candidate’s compensation history during the interview process. Covered Employers: All Delaware employers and hiring agencies. Covered Individuals: All Delaware job candidates. Requirements: Employers are prohibited from making inquiries concerning a candidate’s compensation history, using that history to screen candidates or requiring that prior compensation satisfy minimum or maximum criteria.
Massachusetts Effective date: July 1, 2018	The Pay Equity Act addresses equal pay for comparable work, allowable variations in wages, pay secrecy policies and using salary history in the hiring process. Covered Employers: All Massachusetts employers. Covered Individuals: All Massachusetts employees and candidates. Requirements: Employers are prohibited from inquiring about or relying on a candidate’s salary history during the hiring process.

San Francisco Effective date: July 1, 2018

The Parity in Pay Ordinance prohibits employers from making inquiries concerning a job applicant’s salary history. Covered Employers: San Francisco employers, those contracting with the city and their agents. Covered Individuals: All job applicants, including temporary or seasonal workers. Requirements: Employers are prohibited from asking an applicant’s salary history. Salary history may not be considered in the hiring process or when determining a salary offer. Employers are prohibited from disclosing a current or former employee’s salary history without prior authorization, unless the information is publicly available.

Applicable Federal Laws

In addition to the state and local laws mentioned above, employers should be aware of the following federal laws that regulate employment discrimination and other aspects of the hiring and employment processes.

Equal Pay Act	The Equal Pay Act (EPA) requires that men and women receive equal pay for equal work. Covered Employers and Employees: Virtually all employers and employees. Requirements: Employers are required to pay equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender. Men and woman in substantially equal jobs, those requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility and performed under similar conditions at the same workplace, must be paid equally.
Title VII, ADEA, ADA	Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibit compensation discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability. There is no requirement that the jobs be substantially equal. Covered Employers and Employees: Title VII and ADA, all employers with 15 or more employees. ADEA, all employers with 20 or more employees.
Executive Order 11246	Executive Order 11246 prohibits discrimination in employment decisions based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin. Covered Employers and Employees: Federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in government business in one year.

This Compliance Bulletin is not intended to be exhaustive nor should any discussion or opinions be construed as legal advice. Readers should contact legal counsel for legal advice.  Published with permission for use by clients of BB&T of California. 

© 2017 Zywave, Inc. All rights reserved. 

Wellness Plans Face Significant New Scrutiny from the Department of Labor

 From EBN:

Employers who sponsor a wellness plan and service providers that offer wellness plans to their customers should be aware of recent enforcement activity by the U.S. Department of Labor, as well as a recent court ruling regarding Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations applicable to wellness plans. 

The DOL recently brought suit for various violations under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended against Macy’s Inc., along with the third-party administrators of the retailer’s health plan. 

The suit alleges that the Macy’s wellness plan does not meet the applicable wellness plan non-discrimination requirements because the plan failed to provide a reasonable alternative standard for participants to avoid the tobacco surcharge levied by the wellness plan. It also alleges the plan continued to charge participants a tobacco surcharge even when they participated in the tobacco cessation program offered under the plan. 

The non-discrimination rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended by the Affordable Care Act, require participatory wellness programs to offer a reasonable alternative standard to participants who cannot meet the initial standard. 

According to the complaint, the Macy’s plan did not offer an alternative to the tobacco cessation program for those individuals for whom it was unreasonably difficult to complete the offered tobacco cessation program due to a medical condition, or for whom it was medically inadvisable to attempt to achieve the standards of the tobacco cessation program. 

In addition, the complaint alleges that the plan continued to charge the tobacco surcharge to participants who entered a tobacco cessation program. The only way for a participant to avoid the surcharge was to remain tobacco free for six consecutive months during the plan year. 

The DOL claims that amounts collected by the plan in the form of tobacco surcharges were used by Macy’s to pay claims and administrative expenses associated with its self-insured medical plan. 

The complaint asserts that these actions resulted in Macy’s violating several of ERISA’s fiduciary and prohibited transaction requirements, including failing to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the medical plan and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of plan administration, and engaging in transactions that constituted a direct or indirect transfer to, or use by or for the benefit of a party in interest, of plan assets. 

The DOL also alleged HIPAA non-discrimination violations in Macy’s requiring participants to pay a premium or contribution that was greater than the premium or contribution for a similarly situated participant enrolled in the medical plan on the basis of a health status-related factor. 

The suit also alleges that Macy’s and the third-party administrators of its health plan breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA based on changes made to the plan’s methodology for calculating reimbursement of out-of-network claims. 

In the complaint’s prayer for relief, the DOL requests that Macy’s be ordered to reimburse all participants who paid a tobacco surcharge during the time period at issue, with interest, and be enjoined from collecting any tobacco surcharge until it revises its wellness plan to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements for wellness plans, including the requirement to offer a reasonable alternative standard. 

In addition, the DOL requests that Macy’s be required to disgorge all unjust enrichment or profits received as a result of the alleged fiduciary breaches it committed or for which it is liable.
...

 

More employers are requiring same-sex couples to marry to receive health benefits

From Wolters Kluwer: 

Employers are increasingly requiring same-sex couples to legally marry to receive health care benefits, data from the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans reveals. The trend follows the June 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage. 

Immediately after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, three in ten employers reported they were likely to discontinue providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners. 

Findings were drawn from Employee Benefits Survey: 2016 Results, Domestic Partner Benefits After the Supreme Court Decision: 2015 Survey Results and Employee Benefits for Same-Sex Couples: The DOMA Decision One Year Later. 

Larger organizations are the most likely to be maintaining same-sex domestic partner benefits. Three in four organizations (77 percent) with 10,000 or more employees continue to offer domestic partner benefits. 

In 2014, one year before the ruling, employers reported that:

• 51 percent provided benefits to same-sex partners in a civil unions
• 59 percent provided benefits to same-sex domestic partners
• 79 percent provided benefits to same-sex spouses.

In 2016, one year after the ruling, the number of employers offering health care benefits to unmarried same-sex couples has dropped. Employers report that:

• 31 percent are providing benefits to same-sex partners in civil unions (down 20 percent from 2014)
• 48 percent are providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners (down 11 percent from 2014).

...

 

AT&T Health Plan Must Cover Girl’s Horse-Based Therapy

From Bloomberg BNA: 

An AT&T Inc. health plan must pay for an employee’s daughter’s mental health treatment at a residential center that combines psychotherapy with riding horses ( Lynn R. v. ValueOptions , 2017 BL 293893, D. Utah, No. 2:15-cv-00362-RJS-PMW, 8/22/17 ). 

The health plan was wrong to deny more than $117,000 in medical claims for treatment the girl received at Utah-based Equine Journeys, a federal judge ruled Aug. 22. The plan said it denied coverage because the facility wasn’t nationally accredited, but the judge rejected this rationale. “Nowhere does the Plan state a provider must be nationally accredited for the treatment to be medically necessary,” the judge said.

  

Draft Forms and Instructions For 2017 ACA Reporting Released

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently released the draft instructions for  2017 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C used by applicable large employers (ALEs) to report under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Sections 6055 and 6056. The newly released instructions  incorporate  minor changes that were reflected in the 2017 draft forms, released on July 27, 2017.   

 

2017 forms are due to employees/covered individuals by Jan. 31, 2018, and must be filed with the IRS by Feb. 28, 2018 (or April 2, 2018, if filing electronically since March 31 is a Saturday). As a reminder, it appears ALEs will not have the extension to file they had for their 2016 forms.

 

Draft instructions provide employers with a few clarifications, including the following:

• Transition Relief: Certain limited transition relief was available to ALEs for 2015 & 2016. Since no transition relief is available in calendar year 2017,  any reference to that relief has been removed.  Both boxes "B" and "C" on line 22  of form 1094 C are now labeled "Reserved". These boxes will never apply in 2017 as the transition relief for boxes "B" and "C"are no longer applicable. The second change is column (e) in Part III of the Form 1094-C is also labeled "Reserved". Column (e) in Part III of the Form 1094-C was tied to box "C".
• Plan Start Month: Optional again in 2017 on form 1095C, Part II.
• Penalty Information: The penalty remains at $260 per violation, but maximum was indexed to an annual maximum of $3,218,500 (up from a maximum of $3,193,000, for 2016).
• Formatting Returns: Clarifies formatting must be in landscape.
• Line 15: The instructions  added  for Forms 1095-C filed with incorrect dollar amounts on line 15, Employee Required Contribution, may fall under a safe harbor for certain de minimis errors. The safe harbor generally applies if no single amount in error differs from the correct amount by more than $100. ( see page 6)
• Line 16: A note has been added in the instructions for Code 2 series " There is no specific code to enter on line 16 to indicate that a full-time employee offered coverage either did not enroll in the coverage or waived the coverage."   This question has been raised often and  employers can either enter appropriate affordability codes of 2F,2H or2G or leave blank to indicate unaffordable.
• IRS Hotline: Information on an IRS website and IRS hotline phone number  (1-800-919-0452)  have been added to the recipient form back page instructions

For a more detailed discussion of both the finalized forms and their accompanying instructions, please see our legislative alert below.

 

Draft Forms and Instructions for 2017 ACA Reporting Released

Federal Court Strikes Down 2016 Overtime Rule

Highlights:

• A federal court struck down the 2016 overtime rule that was supposed take effect on Dec. 1, 2016.
• The salary level limit for EAP employees remains at $455 per week or $23,660 per year.
• The salary level limit for HCEs remains at $100,000 per year.

Important Dates:

• November 22, 2016 - A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the overtime rule.
• August 31, 2017 - The final rule was struck down.

---

On Aug. 31, 2017, a federal judge in Texas struck down the Department of Labor’s (DOL) 2016 overtime rule, stating that the DOL had exceeded its authority by issuing a new salary level requirement for white collar exempt employees. 

The DOL is unlikely to appeal this court decision because the ruling does not put into question the DOL’s general authority to set any type of salary limit. 

However, the DOL has also signaled its intention to propose a new overtime rule. The DOL has published a request for information (RFI) to invite the public to comment on the issues the DOL should consider before proposing a new overtime rule. 

Action Steps 

Employers are not required to comply with the 2016 overtime final rule. This ruling ensures that the rule will not take effect. Employers should monitor developments on a new overtime rule proposal. 

DOL Rule on White Collar Exemptions 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage and overtime pay protections for many workers in the United States. However, the FLSA exempts certain workers, such as white collar employees, from these protections. The white collar exemptions apply to certain executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, computer and highly compensated employees. 

To qualify for the executive, administrative or professional (EAP) exemption, an employee must meet a salary basis test, a salary level test and a duties test. The DOL’s 2016 overtime rule would have increased the required salary level from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $913 per week ($47,476 per year). Highly compensated employees (HCEs) must also satisfy the salary basis and duties tests to be considered exempt, but a different salary level applies to them. The DOL rule would have increased the required salary level for highly compensated employees from $100,000 per year to $134,004 per year

Challenges to the 2016 Overtime Rule
In September 2016, a coalition of 21 states and a number of business groups filed two separate lawsuits challenging the new rule. These two lawsuits were combined in October. On Nov. 16, 2016, the court held a hearing on whether to grant an emergency injunction blocking the implementation of the rule. The judge presiding over the case issued his written ruling granting the injunction on Nov. 22, 2016.

On Aug. 31, 2017, the same federal court struck down the 2016 overtime rule stating that the DOL exceeded its authority when imposing the $913 per week ($47,476 per year) and $134,004 per year salary level limits.

The Future of FLSA Overtime Regulations
On July 26, 2017, the DOL published an RFI regarding the overtime exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees. The purpose of the RFI is to gather information from the public before formulating a proposal to amend the FLSA or its regulations.

The RFI does not place any responsibilities on employers. However, any individual or organization interested in responding to the RFI must submit their comments to the DOL by Sept. 25, 2017. The DOL is encouraging individuals and organizations to submit their comments electronically, using the instructions in the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

When submitting a comment, employers should remember that, once submitted, comments are considered public records and will be published without editing. This includes any personal information provided.

  

2018 HSA/HDP Limits