|
(March 2001)
Salary
Basis Tests Changes to Monthly
|
|
|
|
Immediately
|
|
|
|
All employers
|
|
|
| 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 employees 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 DLSEs 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 counsels guidance is set forth below (see The
DLSEs New Interpretation). |
|
|
What
is the "Salary Basis" Test?
|
|
|
In
addition to the requirement that the employees
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 employees
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 weeks 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 employees predetermined
compensation for absences occasioned by the employer
or the businesss 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 employees
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 employers 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 Counsels interpretation means that if an
exempt employee works even one hour during a calendar
month, the employee must receivehis/her full months
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 Counsels 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 months 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.
|
|
|