On Monday, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings in Lubbock, Texas, struck down a Biden administration rule aimed at expanding mandatory overtime pay to 4 million salaried workers. This decision mirrors a similar ruling by U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan in Sherman, Texas, who permanently blocked the rule in November. Both judges, appointed by Republican presidents, found that the rule improperly prioritized wages over job duties when determining overtime eligibility.
Disputed Rule Faces Legal and Political Challenges
The overtime rule, introduced by the U.S. Department of Labor, required employers to pay overtime to salaried workers earning less than $1,128 per week (approximately $58,600 annually) starting January 1, 2025. The rule also temporarily increased the threshold to $44,000 annually on July 1, 2024. However, Judge Jordan’s earlier ruling reinstated the previous threshold of $35,500, set in 2019.
Judge Jordan and Judge Cummings agreed that the rule overstepped federal law by focusing on salary levels rather than the duties of workers with “executive, administrative, and professional” (EAP) roles, who are exempt from overtime pay under existing federal regulations.
Sheng Li, an attorney for Flint Avenue, the small marketing firm challenging the rule, commended the decision. He stated, “The court correctly stopped the Department’s unlawful attempt to usurp Congress’s power to set nationwide minimum pay standards.”
Limited Practical Impact Amid Political Shifts
While Judge Cummings’ ruling adds legal weight to the opposition, its immediate impact remains minimal due to the existing block from Judge Jordan. Furthermore, with Republican President-elect Donald Trump set to take office, his administration is expected to drop any appeals and likely withdraw the rule altogether.
The U.S. Department of Justice, tasked with defending the rule, declined to comment on the case.
Broader Implications for Wage Policy
The Labor Department defended the rule as necessary to address the disparities faced by lower-paid salaried workers who often perform the same tasks as hourly employees but work longer hours without additional pay. The rule also included provisions to adjust the salary threshold automatically every three years to reflect wage growth.
The case, titled Flint Avenue v. U.S. Department of Labor, underscores the ongoing tension between business interests, worker protections, and the scope of federal authority in setting wage policies. With the incoming administration, the future of overtime eligibility standards remains uncertain.
