.svg)
Each month, Mployer Advisor collects and presents some of the most relevant and most pressing recent changes in law, compliance, and policy in areas related to employee benefits, health care, and human resources.
When Federal agencies enforce the laws that Congress writes, they often have to make judgment calls in interpreting the statutory language about how to practically go about accomplishing the intentions of the law.
For the last 40 years, those agencies have relied on Supreme Court precedent requiring courts to defer to the agencies’ judgment in interpreting how to enforce federal statutes so long as there was some ambiguity about what the statute intended that the agencies had interpreted in a reasonable manner.
That deference was especially relied upon when modern agencies were interpreting federal laws that were written a long time ago, like the Fair Labor Standards Act, which was written in the 1930s when working conditions, and American life for that matter, were very different.
With the Supreme Court’s latest decision in the cases of Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, however, that deference previously afforded to federal regulators in interpreting ambiguous federal laws and filling in the gaps will now be shifted to the federal courts.
While the ruling will not overturn all previous decisions that have been based on the deference previously afforded executive agencies, of which there are thousands, those previous challenges are now ripe to be litigated, only now the government will have to justify their interpretation of the statute and their resulting authority to take a given action with persuasive reasoning, which will likely prove to be a much harder standard for federal regulators to meet.
It may take some time before major effects from this decision start being felt, but the regulatory landscape will likely look very different in the next 5 years than it has for the past 30 and at the very least there is likely to be significant confusion in the meantime.
The Department of Labor recently increased the pay thresholds for Executive, Administrative, and Professional employees (EAP) including salaried computer workers, and Highly Compensated Employees (HCEs) to remain exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime laws.
Beginning today, July 1, 2024 the EAP exemption threshold will increase from $35,568 to $43,888. That threshold number is also set to rise again the following year on January 1, 2025, when the EAP exemption minimum annual salary rises to $58,656, after which automatic increases will begin July 1, 2027 and every three years after that.
The increase in the minimum HEC exemption threshold follows a similar path, with the first increase up to $132,964 beginning today, before increasing again to $151,164 on January 1, 2025 and every three years after beginning on July 1, 2027.
The overtime and minimum wage exemption threshold for computer workers that are paid hourly remains at $27.63 per hour, while the threshold for computer workers paid on salaried basis is linked with the EAP minimum.
Barring any unforeseen changes or court-initiated interventions, the first exemption-threshold increases are set to take effect in one month.
In preparation, employers and human resources professionals may want to identify all the employees who may be affected and assess whether to increase their pay in accordance with the rate increases or whether it is better to begin paying them overtime (and minimum wage if applicable) instead.
You can find more about these exemption threshold increases here.
The IRS announced the 2025 adjustments to health savings account and high deductible health plans:
The self-coverage limit increased by $150 to $43,00 while the family coverage limit increased by $250 to $8,550.
You can read more about the adjustments here.
The final regulations in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect on June 18, 2024.
Some of the accommodations that the final rule presumes to be reasonable absent an especially significant justification for denying the accommodation, including allowing pregnant employes to:
The rule also places a number of limitations for when employers can require supporting documentation in order for employees to request or receive accommodations under the rule, allowing employers to request such documentation only when it is reasonable under the circumstances.
The final rule also requires accommodations for medical appointments, and defines certain terms broadly enough to require accommodations for medical care involving fertility, contraception, and situations when pregnancies abruptly end whether willfully or not.
You can find the final rule here.
Final deadline for EEO-1 Component 1 submissions was June 4, 2024 - so those are past due if not yet submitted
This filing must be submitted by every company that has 100 or more employees across all locations and/or is affiliated with a company that has 100 or more employees through common ownership or centralized management.
Further, this filing must also be submitted by any company with 50 employees or more that has a contract with the federal government worth at least $50,000 or has an establishment that holds a federal contract worth at least $50,000.
Companies or establishments thereof that are federal contractors and serve as depositories of federal funds no matter how much or how little, as well as financial entities that are issuing and paying agents for US Savings Bonds and Savings notes must also submit this form.
Check the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) website for more information.
.png)
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
%20(1).png){kind=small}
.png)
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg)