UPDATE: 01/05/2017 –  On Tuesday, a federal court in Texas denied a request to delay further proceedings in a case challenging the U.S. Labor Department’s overtime rule. Late last year Judge Amos Mazzant suggested that eventually he would issue a permanent injunction blocking the rule. With Congress unable to fight the rule via Congressional Review Act legislation (the final regulations came to early and the window has shut), the incoming Trump Administration will need to take steps to repeal it by issuing new regulations.

So – for now, the temporary injuction remains, and the OT rule is NOT in effect. We still await a permanent ruling.

Small business owners were expecting some changes to take effect on December 1st when they were supposed to implement a regulation that would extend overtime eligibility to salaried employees that make less than $47,476 per year. A Texas Federal Judge granted a preliminary injection that puts the whole deal on hold.

Here in the Stateline Area, we have a lot of small businesses that would be affected by the ruling, many of which stand against it, hoping for less government regulation, not more. On the other side of the coin, there are plenty of local workers that were looking forward to a change they felt was long overdue. The Stateline Chamber has not lobbied for or against the regulation, but the US Chamber of Commerce is clearly against it.

This injunction means that we will have to wait until the New Year to see if this regulation will hold, or if the US Chamber of Commerce will get its wish, and the entire thing is flipped when the White House receives its new resident, President-Elect Trump.

After announcement of the ruling, the U.S.Chamber of Commerce was jubilant. “We are very pleased that the court agreed with our arguments,” said Randy Johnson, the Chamber’s senior vice president of labor, immigration and employee benefits. The rule, he said, “would have caused many disruptions in how work gets done” and “reduced workplace flexibility, remote electronic access to work, and opportunities for career advancement.”

Ross Eisenbrey, VP of the Economic Policy Institute, who helped the Labor Dept. develop the regulation, called the ruling “a disappointment to millions of workers who are forced to work long hours with no extra compensation” and ” a blow to those Americans who care deeply about raising wages and lessening inequality.”

I’m not here to state whether or not this rule is a good idea, or if the Texas Court was right in its temporary injunction. I do, however, want to make sure that our members are up to date. So, here is what we know:

Current impact of the injunction

• Any employer who has not yet put into effect their plans to comply with the new regulation does not have to—the reason for those plans has been blocked.
• If employers have put compliance plans into place, they will have to decide what they want to do, but the only obligation is to comply with the previous salary threshold of $23,660/year, $455/week. 
• Until we hear otherwise, employers will not have to comply with the DOL’s regulation.

The injunction is not permanent

The court’s action is a preliminary injunction, which means it could be lifted at a later date.   The Department of Labor has also indicated their intent to appeal the decision.  However, the timeline of their appeal is unclear and it’s uncertain whether they will be able to act before the Trump administration takes office on January 20^th.

When will we hear more?

Congress is weighing its options.  However, to be successful in repealing the regulation, any congressional action must be signed by the president.  Therefore, it is unlikely Congress will act before President-elect Trump is sworn in on January 20^th.  So, we can expect some considerable delay here.

So – not a ton happening right now, just some more waiting in wonder. This does seem like a win for those that stand against the regulation, but we will probably have to wait at least another month to see if it will stick.