Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Department of Labor Proposes New Rules

By Alan H. Bowie, Jr. & Sarah S. Healey on April 3, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently proposed two new rules addressing joint employer status and overtime pay calculation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). These proposals are significant because the underlying regulations had not been updated in decades.

Joint Employer Status

On April 1, 2019, the DOL proposed the new rule for determining joint employer status. The proposed rule would establish a four-factor test that would consider whether the potential joint employer actually exercises power to:

  • hire or fire the employee;
  • supervise and control the employee’s work schedules or conditions of employment;
  • determine the employee’s rate and method of payment; and
  • maintain the employee’s employment records.

The proposed rule also includes 9 examples analyzing potential joint employer relationships, which will be open to the public for comment.

This proposed rule would be the first major revision of the joint employer regulations since 1958. In addition, it would cement the current administration’s position on joint employer status.  Recall that the DOL under President Obama issued guidance in 2016 that scrutinized joint employer relationships. In 2017, the current administration rescinded that guidance. Thus, finalizing this new rule would completely overturn the previous administration’s rule and reinforce the new administration’s position.

Overtime Pay Calculation

Last week, the DOL proposed another new rule to clarify and update the regular rate requirements for purposes of calculating overtime under the FLSA. The FLSA generally requires that employers pay overtime of at least one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Under the current rules, employers are discouraged from offering more perks (e.g., gym memberships or bonuses) because it may be unclear whether those perks must be included in the calculation of an employee’s regular rate of pay.

The proposed rule clarifies whether certain kinds of perks, benefits, or other miscellaneous items must be included in the employee’s regular rate. For instance, the rule clarifies that the following perks are excluded from the employee’s regular rate of pay:

  • the cost of providing wellness programs, onsite specialist treatment, gym access and fitness classes, and employee discounts;
  • payments for unused paid leave, including sick leave;
  • reimbursed expenses, even if not incurred “solely” for the employer’s benefit;
  • reimbursed travel expenses that do not exceed the maximum travel reimbursement permitted under the Federal Travel Regulation System regulations and that satisfy other regulatory requirements;
  • discretionary bonuses;
  • Benefit plans, including accident, unemployment, and legal services; and
  • Tuition programs, such as reimbursement programs or repayment of educational debt.

The overtime calculation rule has been submitted for public comment. Click this link to submit a comment. The joint employer status rule is being finalized and will be published for public comment soon. We will keep you updated on the developments. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

Photo of Alan H. Bowie, Jr. Alan H. Bowie, Jr.

Alan H. Bowie, Jr. is a member of Carmody’s Labor and Employment group. During law school, Alan served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and judicial extern to the Honorable Mark A.

Alan H. Bowie, Jr. is a member of Carmody’s Labor and Employment group. During law school, Alan served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, Judge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and judicial extern to the Honorable Mark A. Davis, Judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Read more about Alan H. Bowie, Jr.Email
Show more Show less
Photo of Sarah S. Healey Sarah S. Healey

Sarah S. Healey has represented clients in a range of matters involving, for example, claims of employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation, wrongful discharge, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, defamation, unfair trade practices, and misappropriation of trade secrets in federal and state court.

Sarah S. Healey has represented clients in a range of matters involving, for example, claims of employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation, wrongful discharge, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, defamation, unfair trade practices, and misappropriation of trade secrets in federal and state court. Sarah also regularly defends employers before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. Sarah frequently presents on current labor and employment law issues. She also conducts management training for all employers on topics including harassment prevention and performance management, leaves of absence, accommodating employees with disabilities, and wag and hour compliance.

Read more about Sarah S. HealeyEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Carmody @ Work
  • Organization:
    Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo