and just how express a grant of authority to an executive agency has to be for its regulations to be upheld. We can likely expect a decision by early 2025.On August 12, 2024, the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), a Colorado-based nonprofit that supports evangelical Christian schools, filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) challenging the DOL’s latest promulgation of changes to the EAP (executive, administrative, professional) exemption to the “overtime rule.” See Association of Christian Schools International v. DOL, No. 1:24-cv-02618 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2024).DOL’s 2024 Overtime Exemption RuleThe newest version of the overtime exemption rule (the 2024 Rule) increases the salary minimum before employees may be considered exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) EAP exemptions from $684/week ($35,568/year) to $844/week ($43,888/year) effective July 1, 2024, and to $1,128/week ($58,656/year) effective January 1, 2025. 89 Fed. Reg. 32842; See Final Rule: Restoring and Extending Overtime Protections, Dep’t of Labor (Apr. 23, 2024). It also implements automatic increases every three years beginning in 2025. The increases mean that employers may either have to increase salaries of EAP employees or would have to re-classify those employees as nonexempt. Such reclassification would entitle those employees to overtime pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours a week; to avoid an increase in overtime pay, employers may need to hire additional employees. Either way, employers could face significant labor cost increases.The Association of Christian Schools International’s ComplaintSo, ACSI sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). It argues that the EAP exemption in the 2024 Rule exceeds the authority granted to the DOL by the FLSA to “define and delimit” the term “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity” because the statute does not expressly grant DOL the authority to set “salary” or “compensat

hat the company is not making improper deductions from exempt employees’ pay, which could destroy the “salaried basis” of payment and result in loss of exempt status.Employers should monitor the pending legal challenges in the weeks ahead and be prepared. Employers should continue planning, but be mindful of communication with impacted employees in the event that a court prevents the rule from being implemented. Consider delaying notifying impacted employees of any potential changes until courts weigh in on what salary threshold will be in place on July 1, 2024. Finally, it is important to have a plan on how to notify and train impacted workers. Any employees reclassified as non-exempt should be trained on timekeeping procedures, to avoid “off the clock” FLSA violations.And, as always, if in doubt, consider seeking the advice of an experienced employment attorney. Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees, 89 FR 32842-01. 29 U.S.C. §§206(a)(1), 207(a)(1). 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100–541.304, 541.600, 541.602.Plano Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Su, 4:24-CV-468 (E.D. Tex., filed May 22, 2024).State of Texas v. DOL, et al., 4:24-CV-499 (E.D. Tex., filed June 3, 2024). Of note, the case was initially assigned to Judge Amos Mazzant, and was then transferred to Judge Jordan because the Plano case was filed first. Judge Mazzant previously enjoined the 2016 final rule increasing salary levels for white collar exemptions.Flint Avenue, LLC v. United States Department of Labor, Civil Action NO. 5:24-cv-00130-H (N. D. Tex., filed June 3, 2024). Judge Hendrix has ordered the parties the plaintiff to file any motions for preliminary injunction by June 12, 2024, with briefing on the motion closing on June 24, 2024.Nevada v. United States Department of Labor, 218 F.Supp.3d 520, 524 (E.D.Tex., 2016).Nevada v. United States Department of Labor, 275 F.Supp.3d 795, 798 (E.D.Tex., 2017). 84 Fed. Reg. a