Your Top Destination for Human Resources Compliance Knowledge

Employers don’t have to pay overtime to employees who meet the criteria to be classified as “exempt” under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employers may not, however, simply call an employee “exempt.” They must ensure that such employees meet certain criteria. Under the FLSA, employees must:

• Be paid at least $684 per week,
• Be paid the same amount every week they do any work, and
• Perform certain job duties.

The first two requirements are fairly straightforward, but the last one requires some careful consideration by employers. Many employees fall under what’s been dubbed the “white collar” exemption. This exemption includes executive, administrative, or professional employees.

Having a checklist of questions can help determine if employees perform the duties needed to be classified as exempt under these classifications.

Employers must remember that an employee’s job title doesn’t determine whether they’re exempt or not. An administrative assistant, for example, likely won’t meet the criteria to be classified as exempt, as they won’t perform the required duties.

Below is a quick breakdown of questions that employers can ask themselves to see if employees qualify to be exempt.

Executive exemption

• Is the employee’s primary duty managing the enterprise, or managing a recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise?
• Does the employee customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent?
• Does the employee have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or are the employee’s suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees given particular weight?

Administrative exemption

• Is the employee’s primary duty the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers?
• Does the employee’s primary duty include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance?

Learned professional exemption

• Is the employee’s primary duty the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character, and which includes work requiring the regular exercise of discretion and judgment?
• Does the employee have advanced knowledge in a science or learning field?
• Is the employee’s advanced knowledge customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction?

Creative professional exemption

• Is the employee’s primary duty the performance of work that requires invention, imagination, originality, or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor?
• Does the job’s primary function require independence and creative contribution, not just skill?

These questions should give employers a start in determining whether an employee (or a position) meets the duties tests to be classified as exempt under the FLSA.

State laws, however, can have their own variations. In California, for example, as of January 1, 2026, the minimum salary threshold for exempt employees is $1,352 per week ($70,304 per year). Employers with employees in states with higher salary thresholds must comply with those requirements if they’re more beneficial to employees working there.

Key to remember: Answering some questions on this checklist can help employers determine whether an employee/position may be classified as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.

In 2013, Jeffrey began working for the company. Near the end of each year, the company gave Jeffrey an annual salary increase and bonus that would go into effect the following calendar year.

From October to December of 2020, Jeffrey took leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for mental health conditions. That year, the company gave him a smaller bonus and lower salary increase — a more than 40 percent reduction in bonus and salary increase compared to previous years.

In May 2021, Jeffrey asked for more leave, then an extension, followed by a request to work from home as an accommodation. Because his requested leave was unlimited, the employer denied it and fired Jeffrey. He sued, claiming that the employer violated the FMLA by giving him a lower salary increase and smaller bonus in 2020 because he took FMLA leave. In short, he claimed retaliation.

The employer argued in court that the decreases weren’t an adverse employment action, and that the FMLA leave wasn’t the reason for the smaller increases.

The court didn’t buy the employer’s argument. It held that Jeffrey engaged in protected activity when he took leave and asked for an accommodation. The ruling demonstrated that a reasonable person could find that the lower bonuses and smaller salary increases could have discouraged someone from requesting FMLA leave or asking for an accommodation, which would keep them from engaging in protected activity.

The court also found the timing of the lower amounts was unusually suggestive, as they happened right after he took FMLA leave.

Steidle v. United States Liability Insurance Co., Inc., Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-2999, June 24, 2026.

Court decisions are based on the specific facts presented and each court’s interpretation of the law. Because courts may reach different conclusions, similar situations can lead to different outcomes. Employers should avoid relying on a single case as definitive guidance and instead assess each situation carefully, considering applicable laws, and seeking advice when needed.

Key to remember: Employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions because employees exercise their FMLA rights, and giving employees a smaller pay increase or bonus could be seen as adverse employment actions.

Green is the color of March, as it signals the St. Patrick’s Day holiday as well as the emergence of spring. Did you know that bringing some green into your workplace can have benefits year-round?

A Harvard Business Review study found that bringing small pieces of nature into the workplace positively impacts employee performance and well-being.

Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.

The IRS recently announced the 2027 contribution limits for Health Savings Accounts (or HSAs). Employees with self-only coverage will be able to save an additional $100 annually in their HSAs next year, meaning they’ll be able to contribute up to $4,500 in 2027.

To contribute to an HSA, an employee must be enrolled in an HSA eligible High-Deductible Health Plan, which is generally a health plan that only covers preventive services before the deductible.

In other news, did you know that job protections begin when employees ask for leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (or FMLA), not just when leave begins? This is especially important to remember when an employer wants to discipline or fire an employee who asks about leave.

In a recent case out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court found in favor of the employer, because the employer had well-documented evidence of an employee’s poor job performance as the reason for the termination even though the employee was requesting FMLA leave.

And, finally, a decades-old rule that helps protect companies that voluntarily implement affirmative action plans may be eliminated if the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission gets its way.

The EEOC submitted a proposal to the White House regulatory office on May 27 that would eliminate the agency’s 1979 regulation clarifying how employers could implement affirmative action strategies in line with Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Submission to the regulatory office is the last step before the final rule is published in the Federal Register.

The proposed rescission of the voluntary affirmative action plan rules must undergo a formal notice-and-comment period. Interested stakeholders can submit a public comment, and the EEOC must review them before a final rule is published.

In the meantime, employers may want to assess whether any existing policies or programs could be affected by changes in the federal government’s approach to affirmative action.

That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!

Food insecurity isn’t only something that happens when a person is out of a job, and businesses benefit when they help hungry workers and their families.

Research published by the American Psychological Association earlier this year shows that food insecurity makes an impact on job outcomes.

“There is an implicit assumption that food insecurity primarily affects unemployed people, but it’s a pervasive issue that impacts a sizable portion of the workforce,” lead researcher Jason Moy, a doctoral student in organizational behavior at the University of Washington, said in a news release about the study. “We hope business leaders can change their mindset and understand that supporting employees facing food insecurity extends beyond humanitarian concerns and benefits the businesses themselves.”

In 2023, an estimated 13.5 percent of American households (18.3 million) experienced food insecurity, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. More than half of all food-insecure households had at least one adult working full-time.