On May 5, 2026, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) filed its final rule adopting N.J.A.C. 12:11, which provides regulatory guidance on how the state’s longstanding “ABC” test is applied to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The final rule, which carries an operative date of October 1, 2026, arrives after a contentious rulemaking process that drew sharp criticism from financial services and insurance to construction and app-based transportation. While the ABC test itself is nothing new in New Jersey—it has been the statutory standard for nearly 90 years—these rules represent the first comprehensive regulatory framework explaining how the NJDOL interprets and applies the test. Critically, the ABC test in New Jersey governs not just unemployment insurance but also the state’s Wage and Hour Law, Wage Payment Law, Earned Sick Leave Law, and Temporary Disability Benefits Law, giving these rules a practical reach far broader than similar regulations in most other states. Employers operating in the state should begin evaluating their independent contractor relationships now to prepare for implementation.
Salary threshold. . .$35,568.00. . .the Eastern District of Texas. . .not the classic answers you expect to hear from your loved ones around the Thanksgiving table when you ask, “Hey guys, what are you most thankful for?” While family, friends, food, and a roof over your head are all great, the fact that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas shot down the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) attempt at increasing the overtime salary threshold to $58,656.00 is right up there for employers.
The DOL’s Not-So-Final “Final Rule”
Back on April 23, 2024, the DOL announced their “final rule,” which entailed a multi-phase increase of the “white-collar exemption” (the executive, administrative, and professional employees (“EAP”)) salary threshold from $35,568.00 to $43,888.00, starting on July 1, 2024, and then up to $58,656.00, starting on January 1, 2025 (with increases automatically occurring every three years thereafter). Notably absent were any changes to the DOL’s “duties” test, which must be analyzed in conjunction with a salary when determining whether an EAP employee is exempt from overtime. At the time of its announcement, the DOL projected their final rule would make four million workers newly eligible for overtime payments and cost employers nationwide roughly $1.4 billion in the first year alone. Being thankful for a $35,568.00 threshold is looking more and more understandable now, isn’t it?
We’ve all known this day was coming—it was just a matter of time. From the moment the Biden Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced that the Trump DOL’s 2020 increase to the Fair Labor Standards Act salary threshold for the so-called “white collar” exemptions (primarily the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions (“EAP”)) was not good enough, it became crystal clear that a new rule was in the works.
Although it took the DOL some time to put its thoughts together, it issued the proposed new rule in September 2023, and awaited public comments—33,000 of those followed. After reviewing each of the comments, the DOL announced its final rule yesterday. Here are the basics:
It will be effective as of July 1, 2024.
There are no changes to the duties tests (perhaps the only positive news).
The new salary thresholds for the EAP exemptions and the highly compensated employee (“HCE”) exemption essentially will be phased in beginning on July 1, 2024, and then fully implemented on January 1, 2025.
Note: On July 1, 2024, the DOL is implementing an interim increase to the thresholds (as noted below) that is based on current earnings data using the methodology established in the Trump DOL’s final rule.
Then, on January 1, 2025, the DOL will use the new methodology to establish the full salary thresholds.
Beginning on July 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter, the DOL will update the salary thresholds to align with the then-current earnings data.
Here’s a chart based on the DOL’s FAQ that provides the relevant data points:
DATE
STANDARD SALARY LEVEL
HCE ANNUAL COMPENSATION THRESHOLD
Before 7/1/2024
$684/wk ($35,568/yr)
$107,432
7/1/2024
$844/wk ($43,888/yr)
$132,964
1/1/2025
$1,128/wk ($58,656/yr)
$151,164
1/1/2027 (and every three years thereafter)
TBD based on 35th percentile of full-time salaried earnings in lowest Census region
TBD based on 85th percentile of full-time salaried employees nationally
Where’s the good news for employers, you ask? Uh, there really isn’t any … except maybe that the new salary threshold is not immediately rising to $60,000 and the expectation that any one of a number of business organizations is likely to challenge the new rule, perhaps using a number of the theories raised in the fighting that ultimately resulted in the rule being blocked by Judge Mazzant in the federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.
If the above did not wake you up, please keep in mind that the DOL has projected that costs for employers in the first year of this new rule will be about $1.4 billion and the rule will make four million workers newly eligible for overtime pay (unless their employer intervenes in some fashion).
So, what do you do? Grab your popcorn and watch the challenges to the new rule roll in? Maybe—but you should start considering those currently exempt employees who fall in the “danger zone” between $35,568 annually and $43,888 annually and evaluate whether you can consider a raise to the new threshold or instead need to potentially reclassify them to non-exempt status. Fortunately, that danger zone (leading up to July 1, 2024) is somewhat narrow when compared to what will come on January 1, 2025. At least the phased implementation provides a longer window to watch the anticipated legal challenges unfold. As an added note of caution, you should remember that current state law minimum salary thresholds like those that exist in New York and California, which are significantly higher than those in the DOL rule, continue to apply. Don’t touch that dial!
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (US 20–1573 6/15/22) (“Moriana”). The singular question presented to the Court was whether the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) requires enforcement of arbitration agreements waiving an employee’s right to assert “representative” claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). In response, the Court provided two answers: (1) wholesale waivers of an employee’s right to bring any PAGA claims in any forum will not be enforced; yet (2) arbitration agreements can require an employee to arbitrate their own individual PAGA claims, leaving the absent employees’ claims subject to dismissal.
For context, PAGA is a decades-old law that allows private citizens to step into the shoes of the Labor Commissioner, essentially turning “aggrieved” employees into bounty-hunters for the State’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency (“LWDA”). Specifically, PAGA litigants are authorized to recover civil penalties on behalf of the State for certain Labor Code violations, which would otherwise be recoverable only by the Labor Commissioner. If successful, employees receive a 25 percent share of civil penalties recovered, with the remaining 75 percent going to the LWDA. And another thing, PAGA allows for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs, which are often exponentially larger than the underlying civil penalties and statutory damages recovered—leaving no surprise as to why PAGA has become such a popular vehicle for plaintiffs’ attorneys.
California is infamous for its hostility towards employers. On May 23, the California Supreme Court continued on its unwavering mission to solidify that well-earned reputation by issuing a 45-page decision in Naranjo et al. v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., a case we have been closely monitoring at Blank Rome.
For context, the failure to pay wages in California triggers not only an award of those unpaid wages, but potentially steep and costly statutory and civil penalties as well, including so-called: (1) “waiting time penalties”—up to 30 days’ wages for former employees; and (2) “wage statement penalties” when the unpaid wages render the employee’s pay stub inaccurate. Wage statement penalties start at $50 for the first violation and rise to $100 for subsequent violations. When claims are brought on a classwide basis, these penalties can become astronomical, as they are all assessed on a per-employee, per-pay-period basis.
President Biden is expected to soon sign into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was recently passed by both houses of Congress. President Biden has long supported measures to limit mandatory arbitration clauses in general and specifically endorsed the Act, which received bipartisan support.
The Act will amend the Federal Arbitration Act to limit every employer’s ability to mandate predispute arbitration of an employee’s claims of sexual harassment or sexual assault. The salient language provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.
On December 15, the U.S. Supreme Court changed course and announced that it would decide whether representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (known as “PAGA”) can be waived by an otherwise enforceable arbitration pact—taking on a years-long conflict between the California Supreme Court’s 2014 Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC decision (holding that arbitration agreements cannot bar PAGA claims) and the U.S. Supreme Court’s own 2018 Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis decision (holding that courts must enforce arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), including those containing class/collective action waivers). You can read more about the Epic Systems holding in Epic Shift: Supreme Court Enforces Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements and The Epic Systems Decision: Where Do Employers Go from Here?
Critics of Iskanian and its progeny essentially argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that it allowed an end run around the FAA, which preempts any state law that restricts the enforceability of arbitration agreements.
The petition was filed on behalf of Viking River Cruises, one of many filed by employers across the Golden State this year, each asking the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on the Iskanian versus Epic Systems PAGA conflict.
The Blank Rome team will be watching this one closely and with bated breath, as the Supreme Court’s ruling will impact thousands of businesses and have fundamental and profound effects on representative litigation both in California and across the United States.
Meal and Rest Period Premiums Must Include All “Non-Discretionary Payments” and Not Just Hourly Wages
Michael L. Ludwig
If an employer does not provide an employee with a compliant meal or rest period, Labor Code section 226.7(c) requires the employer to “pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation.” In Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, the California Supreme Court held that the “additional hour of pay” for meal or rest period violations must encompass all non-discretionary payments, as well as hourly wages. Thus, if an employer pays an employee non-discretionary incentive pay or bonuses, or commissions, those amounts must be included in determining the “hour of pay” the employer owes to the employee for a meal or rest period violation. (Note: The same rule applies to a “recovery” period, which is less common and refers to a cooldown period afforded an employee to prevent heat illness.)
Many employers have initiated practices of monitoring time records for apparent meal period violations and automatically paying an hour of pay accordingly. If the hour of pay was paid at an employee’s base hourly rate that did not include non-discretionary payments, then additional amounts may now be owed to the employee. Also, given the increased cost to an employer of a meal period premium, employers who provide employees flexibility regarding the scheduling of their meal periods may want to reconsider that flexibility and instead insist on strict meal period scheduling and reporting to avoid potential exposure.
Finally, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (“Department”) formalized its leap to modernize and streamline its regulation governing the executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions (and the outside sales exemption) from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. To confirm, yes, the Commonwealth is leaving the U.S. Department of Labor’s recent rule in the dust! See our last blog post on this from February here, as well as the ones from July 2018 and January 2018.
Although the Department took great pains to better—but not fully—align its requirements with those under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the hallmarks of this new regulation are the new salary threshold increases:
$35,568 ($684 per week) effective 10/3/2020 (which matches the FLSA threshold that was effective 1/1/2020—see our prior post here);
$40,560 ($780 per week) effective 10/3/2021;
$45,500 ($875 per week) effective 10/3/2022; and
On 10/3/2023, and every third year thereafter, the minimum salary will change to match the 10th percentile of wages for Pennsylvania workers who work in exempt EAP positions.
On August 3, 2020, at the urging of the State of New York, U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York struck down four different provisions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) implementing regulation for the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”): (1) the “work availability” requirement, under which paid leave is only available if an employee has work from which to take leave; (2) the requirement of employer permission to take leave intermittently; (3) the definition of “health care provider” for purposes of exclusion from paid leave benefits; and (4) the requirement for an employee to provide certain documentation before taking leave. New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 2020 WL 4462260 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020).
Although the judge did not issue a “nationwide” injunction, the mere fact that there was a decision by a federal judge striking certain important provisions of the FFCRA regulation left employers (or maybe just their counsel) in a panic about the implications outside of New York. Would this decision impact eligible employees in California? Would the decision be retroactive? Would the DOL appeal? Would it seek a stay of the decision while the appeal was pending? Continue reading “Strident DOL Revises FFCRA Reg, Thumbs Its Nose at NY Federal Court Decision”
