Skip to content

Menu

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

Labor and Employment 2025 Federal Legal Updates

By Nicholas Ustaski, Daisy Ramirez & Gerardo Medina on December 16, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Table of Contents

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace
  • Final Rule: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act
  • Federal Court Strikes Down Federal Minimum Salary Requirement for the White Collar Exemptions Under the FLSA
  • Federal Court Blocks the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) From Implementing Rule Banning Employee Non-Competes Minimum Salary Requirement for the White-Collar Exemptions Under the FLSA
  • Minimum Wage for Federal Contract Workers Covered by Executive Order 14026

Link to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace

The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance guidelines on harassment in the Workplace were issued on April 29, 2024. In the guidance, the EEOC presents a legal analysis of standards for harassment and employer liability applicable to claims of harassment under the EEO statutes enforced by the Commission. The guidance sets forth the EEOC’s position on its definition of “protected characteristics” and identifies workplace behaviors that rise to the level of harassment. These include prohibitions on work-related harassment based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; sexual orientation; and gender identity), national origin, disability, genetic information, and age (40 or over).

Most of the guidance addresses and delves into topics that are most relevant to the modern workforce. The guidelines provide 77 specific fact patterns as examples of what constitutes unlawful harassment in the workplace. The examples range from common scenarios involving coworker sexual advances at holiday parties to comments regarding an employee’s natural hair.

While these guidelines are not binding, and the EEOC could expand or revise its guidance, employers should review and use the guidelines as a tool on how to address and prevent unlawful harassment claims in the workplace.

For a further summary of the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace please see the Dykema blog post summarizing the issue here.

Link to Final Rule: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act Final Rule: Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Final Rule on Employee or Independent Contractor classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has been in effect since March 11, 2024. The 2024 Department of Labor (“DOL”) rule rescinds the Independent Contractor Status under the FLSA Rule that was published January 7, 2021, and replaces it with a six-factor “economic realities” test that considers: (1) opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill; (2) investments by the worker and the potential employer; (3) degree of permanence of the work relationship; (4) nature and degree of control; (5) extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the potential employer’s business; and (6) skill and initiative.

Workers who do not meet the new criteria under the rule must be classified as employees and subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) protections and requirements. If misclassified, these workers must be treated as employees. They will be eligible for overtime pay unless they otherwise satisfy the requirements to be considered exempt and be subject to the minimum wage requirements under the FLSA. Employers would also need to comply with the recordkeeping requirements and maintain daily and weekly time records for the worker.

Given President-Elect Trump will be retaking office in January 2025, it is anticipated that the DOL will return to the 2021 independent contractor regulations (issued by the first Trump DOL), which focused on two “core” factors regarding the worker’s control of their work and the worker’s profit and loss in performing the work. If those two “core” factors were met, the worker was an independent contractor; however, if one of the two “core” factors were not met, then three additional “non-core” factors would be analyzed. The Trump DOL’s independent contractor test was more business-friendly and provided a more streamlined approach, which could lead to further individuals being classified as independent contractors.

For a further summary of the Final Rule on Employee or Independent Contractor Classification under the FLSA, please see the Dykema blog post summarizing the issue here.

Link to Federal Court Strikes Down Federal Minimum Salary Requirement for the White Collar Exemptions Under the FLSA Federal Court Strikes Down Federal Minimum Salary Requirement for the White Collar Exemptions Under the FLSA

On April 23, 2024, the Department of Labor issued its Final Rule to increase the minimum salary requirements for “white collar” exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional) (“EAP exemptions”) from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements under the FLSA. The increase was set to take effect in two stages: first, on July 1, 2024, the standard salary level was set to increase from $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to $844 per week ($45,888 annually). Then, on January 1, 2025, the salary was set to increase to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually). The Rule also increased the highly compensation exemption (HCE) total annual compensation level from $107,432 per year to $132,964 per year on July 1, 2024, and $151,164 per year on January 1, 2025.

However, the Rule was recently vacated nationwide by the Eastern District of Texas in State of Texas, et al., v. U.S. Dept. of Lab., et al., No. 4:24-CV-00468-SDJ (E.D. Tex. 2024) wherein the court granted summary judgment in favor of the state of Texas and a coalition of business organizations, striking down the Department of Labor’s regulations mandating significant increases to the salary basis for white-collar employees. As a result, the increases in salary implemented last July, as well as the increase that was to go into effect on January 1, have been nullified, meaning the salary level in effect prior to July 1 ($684 per week, $35,568 per year) was restored and the salary level for the highly compensated employee exemption, $107,432 per year, was reinstated.

For a further summary and update on White-Collar Exemptions under the FLSA, please see the Dykema blog post summarizing the issue here.

Link to Federal Court Blocks the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) From Implementing Rule Banning Employee Non-Competes Minimum Salary Requirement for the White-Collar Exemptions Under the FLSA Federal Court Blocks the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) From Implementing Rule Banning Employee Non-Competes Minimum Salary Requirement for the White-Collar Exemptions Under the FLSA

On August 20, 2024, a federal court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning nearly all employee non-compete agreements from taking effect on September 4, 2024. The case, Ryan LLC et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 3:24-cv-00986 (N.D. Tex.), was brought by a Texas tax preparation company and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This ruling was widely expected because the court issued an order in July 2024 that blocked the FTC from applying the rule to the plaintiff but signaled that it would decide whether to issue a broader injunction before the FTC rule took effect.

The court’s decision means that there is no nationwide ban of non-competes. However, the ultimate fate of the FTC rule remains uncertain, as the decision may be appealed, leading to a potential ruling and decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. This is even more likely given the fact that the rule was previously upheld by a Pennsylvania federal court.

Employers that have, or are considering, non-competes should be aware that they are still subject to existing state laws regulating, and in the case of a few states banning, many types of non-competes. Furthermore, the FTC may still pursue enforcement actions against employers on a case-by-case basis; the FTC’s enforcement (as opposed to rulemaking) authority was not impacted by the recent ruling.

As such, employers should consider cataloging and reviewing their existing portfolio of non-competes (including agreements, such as confidentiality agreements, which could, in effect, function as a non-compete) and be prepared if an appeals court further rules on the FTC rule.

For a further summary and update on the blocking of the FTC Rule, please see the Dykema blog post summarizing the issue here.

Link to Minimum Wage for Federal Contract Workers Covered by Executive Order 14026 Minimum Wage for Federal Contract Workers Covered by Executive Order 14026

Effective January 1, 2025, the hourly minimum wage for federal contract workers performing work on or in connection with covered contracts will increase from $17.20 to $17.75/per hour.

To learn more about any of the Federal legal topics above and how it impacts your business or any other general questions, please contact the authors of this article or your Dykema relationship attorney.

Photo of Nicholas Ustaski Nicholas Ustaski

Nick represents employers of all sizes in a variety of industries on complex employment matters, including experience on hundreds of matters related to complex national and international corporate transactions. His practice primarily consists of, labor and employment due diligence, policy review and revisions…

Nick represents employers of all sizes in a variety of industries on complex employment matters, including experience on hundreds of matters related to complex national and international corporate transactions. His practice primarily consists of, labor and employment due diligence, policy review and revisions, executive management consulting and advisement, mergers and acquisitions and other types of transactions, and employment litigation defense.

Read more about Nicholas UstaskiEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Daisy Ramirez Daisy Ramirez

Daisy Ramirez is an associate attorney in Dykema’s Labor and Employment and Litigation groups, providing counsel to clients on a range of employment and commercial disputes. Daisy assists clients in navigating complex workplace issues and represents them in various litigation matters.

Read more about Daisy RamirezEmail
Photo of Gerardo Medina Gerardo Medina

Gerardo Medina is an associate attorney in Dykema’s Chicago office, specializing in labor and employment law. He excels at crafting strategic, tailored solutions for clients, whether through negotiation, mediation, or litigation. His meticulous approach and thorough preparation equip his clients with the confidence…

Gerardo Medina is an associate attorney in Dykema’s Chicago office, specializing in labor and employment law. He excels at crafting strategic, tailored solutions for clients, whether through negotiation, mediation, or litigation. His meticulous approach and thorough preparation equip his clients with the confidence they need to make informed decisions.

Read more about Gerardo MedinaEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Dykema Labor & Employment Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Dykema
  • 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