July 7, 2020

Volume X, Number 189

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The DOL’s New Rule Removes Presumption Against Overtime Exemption for Possible Retail and Service Establishments, Broadening Availability to Employers

On May 19, 2020, the US Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its final rule likely expanding the FLSA’s Section 7(i) overtime exemption for commission-based workers in retail and service industries by withdrawing the long-standing, historical list of businesses that the DOL identified as falling within or outside of what it deemed to be a retail or service establishment.

Section 207(i) of the FLSA, commonly referred to as Section 7(i), provides an exemption from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements for certain employees of retail or service establishments paid primarily on a commission basis.  For a half-century, the Section 7(i) regulations have contained two non-exhaustive lists of establishments (i) that the DOL deemed to have “no retail concept” that are categorically unable to claim the exemption and (ii) that may be recognized as retail.   These lists have been the source of much confusion, including criticism from counsel in litigation, and some courts, as to whether the lists had any rational basis or had become antiquated and no longer applicable in the modern world.

Under the final rule, which was issued without notice and comment and takes effect immediately, the DOL removes the lists of business with “no retail concept” and that “may be recognized as retail” from the regulations.  This means, that in order in doing so, business establishments that were excluded may now be considered as offering a retail product or service and qualify for the exemption.

The DOL states that the rule “is intended to promote consistent treatment across all industries and reduce confusion when determining eligibility for claiming the section 7(i) exemption.”  Utilizing a single analysis for all establishments is meant to account for an industry gaining or losing retail characteristics as the economy modernizes and develops over time.

In order for a business to avail itself of the Section 7(i) exemption, it must still meet the following three criteria:

  • The employee must be employed by a “retail or service” establishment, which is defined by the DOL as “an establishment 75 per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services (or both) is not for resale and is recognized as retail sales or services in the particular industry.”

  • The employee’s regular rate of pay must exceed 1.5 times the applicable minimum wage under the FLSA.

  • More than half of the employee’s total earning in a representative period must be commissions.

Therefore, the DOL’s new rule, while making the Section 7(i) analysis available to employers that previously were presumed not to be able to enjoy it, does not automatically apply.  The employer still needs to satisfy the standard test, but can now seek such an application without the DOL’s casting a shadow over the argument from the start.

Particularly in light of the impact of COVID-19 on the greater business world, and employers’ renewed focus on reducing overhead where lawful and possible, now is a great time for employers to take a fresh look at the exempt status of their sales people and other commissioned employees.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 147

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Anna Rothschild Labor Attorney Hunton Andrews Kurth
Associate

Anna is an associate in the firm’s Boston office and a member of the labor and employment group. She represents corporate clients in complex employment disputes, focusing her practice on restrictive covenant litigation, wage and hour class and collective actions, as well as providing general employment advice.

Anna earned her JD at Wake Forest University, and is a member of the Massachusetts, Boston and North Carolina Bar. 

617 648 2764
Christopher Pardo Employment Lawyer Hunton Andrews Kurth
Partner

Chris focuses his practice on the defense of complex employment cases in federal and state courts, arbitration, and before administrative agencies.

He represents a broad range of clients in employment, contractual, and labor matters, particularly in the defense of class and collective actions; complex wage and hour issues; trade secret litigation and restrictive covenant agreements; matters involving race, sex, age, disability, and pregnancy discrimination; wrongful termination; ERISA; RICO; and various state law claims, including wage and discrimination claims under the Massachusetts General Laws. Chris also assists employers in responding to administrative complaints and investigations before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office and various other state agencies, and defends employers in such actions.

Chris has successfully represented clients across the country, including in California, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas.

Prior to joining Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Chris worked at other national and international law firms, served in the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination’s enforcement/investigations division, and worked as a judicial intern for Judge Angel A. Cortiñas of the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. He was also a certified legal intern for the Office of the Public Defender for Miami-Dade County, where he defended indigent clients in felony criminal cases.

617 648 2759