June 6, 2020

June 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 04, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

New DOL Rulemaking Clarifies Overtime Exemption for Retail Employees

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule on May 19, 2020, withdrawing past regulations related to overtime exemptions for retail employees. The withdrawal is designed to clarify and “promote consistent treatment” of the retail employee overtime exemption. In issuing this final rule, the DOL took the somewhat extraordinary step of doing so without notice or a comment period. The DOL explained that such a period is unnecessary because the Administrative Procedure Act does not require notice or comment for an “interpretive rule,” and the DOL’s withdrawn lists were mere “interpretive rules.”

Section 7(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows retail and service industry employers to classify certain employees who are paid primarily on a commission basis as exempt from overtime requirements. In order to qualify for this exemption, “the regular rate of pay of such employee [must be] in excess of one and one-half times the [FLSA’s minimum wage],” and “more than half [of the employee’s] compensation for a representative period (not less than one month) [must represent] commissions on goods or services.” 

Critically, the employee must also be employed by a retail or service establishment, as defined by the FLSA. The DOL interpreted “retail or service establishment” as requiring the establishment to have a “retail concept,” meaning that the establishment typically “sells goods or services to the general public,” “serves the everyday needs of the community,” “is at the very end of the stream of distribution,” disposes its products and skills “in small quantities,” and “does not take part in the manufacturing process.” 

Pursuant to its interpretation, the DOL previously created one non-exhaustive list of various types of establishments that lacked a “retail concept,” and another list of establishments that “may be recognized as retail.” The “non-retail” list included industries such as dry cleaners, tax preparers, laundries, roofing companies, travel agencies, blue printing and photostating establishments. While the “may be retail” list included industries such as coal yards, fur repair and storage shops, household refrigerator service and repair shops, masseur establishments, piano tuning establishments, scalp-treatment establishments, and taxidermists. According to the DOL, in most cases the non-retail list “did not provide any explanation for why a particular establishment categorically lacked a retail concept.”

The DOL has now withdrawn the retail and non-retail lists. Rather than being tied to a static list, the DOL explained that it will now apply the exemption-qualifying analysis (set out above) to all establishments, to promote consistent treatment. The DOL also explained that the generally applicable analysis will also better account for changes and developments in industries over time. It is the DOL’s position that this will lead to more consistent treatment of this exemption going forward.

This final rule has thus far been widely considered favorable for employers, as it has the potential to expand the type of business that can use the retail exemption. Employers who previously shied away from this exemption because they were included on the DOL’s prior “non-retail” list may want to take a fresh look. They may find that they do qualify for the exemption under the generally applicable analysis of the FLSA and relevant DOL regulations. 



About this Author

Peter J. Wozniak Barnes Thornburg Chicago  Labor Employment

Pete Wozniak is a vigorous advocate who strives to help his clients navigate issues that can be fraught with challenges as painlessly and efficiently as possible. He is a candid and personable counselor, offering his clients direct advice by leveraging his deep experience performing a broad range of outcome critical functions for complex labor and employment matters.

Pete represents clients across a number of industries, including transportation and logistics, restaurants, retail, manufacturing, and temporary staffing. Handling a number of high profile matters, he identifies the...

Mark Wallin, Attorney, BT, Chicago, Labor Employment
Of Counsel

In order to provide the best counsel, Mark Wallin believes it is his role to understand his clients’ business needs so he can help them determine what resolution will provide the most benefit. His keen ability to understand his clients’ practical concerns allows him to advise on the best path to successfully resolve issues – whether through traditional litigation or negotiated resolution.

In the course of his practice, Mark has focused on providing the highest-level of service to his clients and building long-term relationships. Specifically, he defends employers in a wide range of employment matters including wage and hour class and collective actions, as well as complex, multi-plaintiff and single plaintiff employment discrimination claims brought not only by private plaintiffs but also initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Mark has successfully represented companies of virtually all sizes, litigating matters across multiple areas of the law, from the pleading stage through appeal. He has also represented clients in arbitrations and before administrative bodies.

Mark vigilantly stays abreast of cases, laws, and trends that may impact his clients coming out of the courts, Congress and the state legislature, as well as the U.S. Department of Labor, the EEOC, and state regulatory agencies. He strives to keep a watchful eye on how labor and employment related laws are evolving so as to proactively advise clients.

In addition to his regular legal practice, Mark has undertaken several pro bono cases including trying criminal jury trials in state and federal court, and representing indigent plaintiffs in civil rights matters as part of the federal Trial Bar.

Mark began honing his litigation skill during law school when he interned at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Northern District of Illinois, where he handled both civil and criminal issues. He also interned for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which gave him a unique vantage of seeing the issues from the court’s perspective.