About Us
Services & Training
News & Updates
Calendar
Links
Our Disclaimer
Contact Us

(March 2001)
Salary Basis Tests Changes to Monthly

Effective Date

Immediately

Applies To

All employers

Synopsis

Under federal and state law, an employee must be paid on a salary basis in order to be exempt. This is in addition to the requirement that the employee’s duties meet the test for exempt-level work. Under federal law, this standard is viewed on a weekly basis. The state law has traditionally been interpreted the same way; however, the general counsel of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE") has just issued contrary guidance to all of its enforcement staff that has stunned even some of the DLSE’s Deputies. Specifically, the guidance states that under California law, whether or not an employee meets the salary basis standard will be judged on a monthly basis. The full text of the DLSE general counsel’s guidance is set forth below (see “The DLSE’s New Interpretation”).

What is the "Salary Basis" Test?

In addition to the requirement that the employee’s duties be of an exempt nature, both State and Federal law require that the employee be paid on a salary basis in order for the employee to be exempt. This is because the exempt employee is not paid based on the hourly value of the work, but the overall value of his/her contribution. The exempt employee may work more or less than forty hours per week. Just as the exempt employee will not be paid overtime for working more than 40 hours in a week, the exempt employee should not lose pay for working less. The exempt employee’s pay may not be subjected to reduction because of variations in the quantity or quality of the work performed.

As a general rule under federal law, exempt employees must receive their full salary for any week in which they perform any work, regardless of the number of days or hours actually worked. Thus, deductions ordinarily cannot be made, for example, for absences during a portion of a workweek resulting from jury duty, attendance as a witness, most disciplinary suspensions, or temporary military leave. Employees who are subject to employer policies that permit the docking of pay for missing less than a full week’s work may be considered for that reason alone not to be compensated on a salary basis, even if the policy has never actually been applied to them. The only exception is for intermittent or reduced leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows deductions even for partial-day absences. Under the new state-law guidelines, the exempt employee must receive full pay for any month in which s/he performs any work, even if only a single hour. Moreover, no deductions may be made for any disciplinary suspensions of less than full calendar month increments.

There are a few exceptions providing for daily absence considerations under both state and federal law. Deductions may not be made from a salaried employee’s predetermined compensation for absences occasioned by the employer or the business’s operating requirements if the employee is ready, willing and able to work. However, deductions are permissible for absences from work of a full day or more for personal reasons (i.e., other than for sickness or accident). The primary example of this is when an exempt employee takes a full day off for vacation.

Deductions may also be made without invalidating an employee’s salaried status when the employee is absent for a day or more because of sickness or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy, or practice of providing compensation for loss of salary occasioned by both sickness and disability. Thus, deductions for absences of full-day increments because of sickness or disability may be made before an employee has qualified under the employer’s plan, policy or practice, and after he has exhausted his leave allowance under such a program.

Courts have reached differing conclusions on whether an employer may permissibly require or permit salaried employees to use accrued leave benefits for fractions of a day missed because of personal reasons or illness.

The DLSE's New Interpretation

There had been some discussion at the DLSE regarding the salary basis test and whether a weekly or monthly standard applied. One of the Deputies sent an e-mail to the General Counsel of the DLSE asking "So it is correct to say that an employee only needs to work one day in the month in order to receive his/her full salary? If not the exemption is lost for the entire month?" The General Counsel responded by issuing the following guidance to its enforcement personnel on March 6, 2001:

The answer to this is found at 29 CFR 541.118, which describes the federal salary basis test. Of course, for state law purposes, we need to replace all references to "weekly" with "monthly." Thus,

1. The employer can't reduce the exempt employees salary because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.

2. Subject to certain exceptions discussed below, the employee must receive his full salary for any month in which he performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. However, an employee need not be paid for any month in which he performs no work.

3. An employee will not be considered to be "on a salary basis" if deductions from his predetermined compensation are made for absences occasioned by the employer or by operating requirements of the business. Accordingly, if the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work was not available. This means that if an employer shuts down for an entire calendar month, the employer need not pay the exempt employee; but if the shut down is for less than a full calendar month, the employee must be paid his full monthly salary. If an employer deducts pay from an employee's salary because the employer failed to make work available (e.g., a plant shutdown) for a period of less than a full calendar month, the exemption is lost for the entire month(s) in which such deductions were made, and the employee is entitled to payment of overtime.

4. Deductions may be made, without losing the exemption, when the employee absents himself from work for a full day or more for personal reasons, other than sickness or accident.

5. Deductions may also be made for absences of a full day or more occasioned by the employee's sickness or injury, if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing compensation for loss of salary occasioned by sickness or disability. Generally, an employee will be compensated for such time out of the employee's accrued sick leave/disability leave. But if the employee does not yet qualify for paid leave under the employer's plan, policy or practice (e.g., sick leave not available until employee has worked on job for two months) or if the employee has exhausted his leave allowance under such a plan, policy or practice (e.g., the employee used up all his annual sick leave), then the employer can deduct for absences of one full day or more.

6. Deductions may not be made for employee absences caused by jury duty, attendance as a witness, or temporary military leave, unless the employee is absent for a full calendar month.

7. The employer can pro-rate the employee's salary in the initial or final month of employment, if the employee works less than a full month. Other than that, pro-ration is inconsistent with AB 60's salary basis test, and deductions will defeat the exemption except as permitted above.

8. Finally, in contrast to the federal regulations, under state law the employer cannot deduct for "penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules of major significance." Such deductions from pay are clearly

What This Means

The General Counsel’s interpretation means that if an exempt employee works even one hour during a calendar month, the employee must receivehis/her full month’s salary in order to be exempt during that month. If there is a situation with an exempt employee for which this rule would cause ongoing difficulty, then one solution might be to reclassify the person as non-exempt and pay the person on an hourly basis. However, in most cases, this is not an ongoing issue. More likely sources of problems will be when an employee is out on jury duty or military for several weeks, or if there is a need for a disciplinary suspension. The most common source of a problem will probably be absenteeism – the exempt employee who just does not show up for a week at a time. If the absence is due to vacation or illness as set forth in the above-described exceptions, it should be manageable; however, it otherwise cannot be dealt with through payroll. Rather, the issue would be a disciplinary one.

The new interpretation regarding the salary basis test is also likely to mean that judging whether or not an employee spends 51% or more of his/her time in exempt duties would also be determined by looking at the entire calendar month. Employers may wish to review the duties and pay structure of all exempt employees to confirm proper classification. Employers will also need to review their pay practices to ensure compliance with the new interpretation. This should include updating personnel policies to reflect the new rules.

Many people (including some within the DLSE) question the validity of the General Counsel’s interpretation. Unfortunately, the issue is not likely to be resolved without litigation, and even then, it is unclear which way a court might rule. The probable source of such litigation will be an employee or group of employees who find out about this interpretation and complain that they missed a couple weeks of work (maybe while on jury duty…) and did not get their full month’s salary. The argument would be that, as a result, they were not legally exempt, and are therefore entitled to overtime pay going back to January 1, 2000. Such claims are very expensive; therefore, it is important for employers to avoid being the target of such litigation and/or to minimize any damages by complying with the new interpretation immediately.

This material is a general overview of the subject matter, and is not meant to provide rofessional opinions regarding any specific case, matter, or set of facts, or to substitute for the professional advice of Waag and Co. Instead, please contact Susan S. Waag, Esq. for additional information. Use of this information is allowed, provided that credit is given to: Susan S. Waag, attorney; Waag and Co.; March 2001 Employer Bulletin; INFO@WaagandCo.com; (805) 783-2300.

You can download the current and past Bulletins in PDF (Portable Document File) format where proceeded by below. All other Bulletins are in standard HTML format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is required to open, view, and print the bulletins, you can download the application FREE from the link below.
December 2004: Government Rescinds Emergency Meal Regulation Changes
December 2004: Major Changes in Meal / Rest Break Regulations
August 2004: California’s Infamous “Bounty Hunter” Law Reformed
June 2002: Workers' Comp. Relief for Employers
April 2002: Supreme Court Favors Employers in FMLA Ruling
April 2002: Salary Basis Issue Finally Resolved
November 2001: New California Legislation (update)
November 2001: (2 Court Cases) What is Harassment?
October 2001: New Drug & Alcohol Testing Rules
October 2001: Tax Legislation: New Pension Laws
October 2001: Employers Must Explain Family Leave
March 2001: Rest and Meal Periods II
March 2001: Salary Basis Test Changes to Monthly
January 2001: AB 2509 (Wage & Hour Law)
December 2000: Rest and Meal Periods
Dec. 2000: New Calif. IWC Wage Order 16
Dec. 2000: New OSHA Ergonomics Standards
Nov. 2000: New Workplace Investigations Course
November 2000: Calif. Minimum Wage Increase
March 2000: AB60 Update
August 1999: Sick Pay Law
August 1999: Cal Poly Class and GMS
August 1999: Age Discrimination Law
November 1998: Susan Waag CCPA
November 1998: FEHA Liability Reduction
November 1998: Disability Discrimination
November 1998: COBRA
November 1998: CHP Drug Testing
July 1998: Sexual Harassment


Top | Home | About Us | Services | News | Calendar | Links | Disclaimer| Contact Us

WAAG AND CO. • Phone (805) 783-2300 • Toll Free (888) 650-WAAG • Fax (805) 544-4215
P.O. Box 5060, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 • info@waagandco.com