Furthermore, “a customarily recognized department or subdivision must have a permanent status and a continuing function.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103(a).Management includes “training of employees; . . . directing the work of employees; maintaining production or sales records for use in supervision or control; appraising employees’ productivity and efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or other changes in status; handling employee complaints and grievances; [and] disciplining employees.”

Furthermore, “a customarily recognized department or subdivision must have a permanent status and a continuing function.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103(a).Management includes “training of employees; . . . directing the work of employees; maintaining production or sales records for use in supervision or control; appraising employees’ productivity and efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or other changes in status; handling employee complaints and grievances; [and] disciplining employees.”

f the FLSA’s regulation exempting teachers, physicians and lawyers from the salary requirements (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.303(d) & .304(d));include any version of the FLSA’s regulation exempting computer professionals who are paid on an hourly basis (29 C.F.R. § 541.400);align the outside sales exemption under the PMWA with its federal counterpart (29 C.F.R. § 541.500);adopt the streamlined test for the EAP exemptions applicable to “highly compensated” employees (29 C.F.R. § 541.601);provide guidance regarding what it means to be paid on a “salary or fee basis”—including whether deductions from an exempt employee’s salary are authorized to the same extent they are permitted under the FLSA (29 C.F.R. § 541.602 - .606); andinclude several of the definitions set forth in the FLSA regulations, including: the definitions of “department or subdivision,” “two or more other employees,” or “particular weight”—all of which are relevant for the interpretation and application of the executive exemption (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.103-105);the definitions of “directly related to management or general business operations,” “discretion and independent judgment”—all of which are relevant for the interpretation and application of the administrative exemption (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.201-202); andthe definitions of “primary duty,” “customarily and regularly,” “directly and closely related” or any of the other provisions of 29 C.F.R. Subpart H.Pennsylvania employers have one year to prepare for a new state salary threshold that significantly exceeds the FLSA standard. Even now, however, the above differences between the PMWA and FLSA regulations mean that potential traps already exist for unwary employers that comply in good faith with the FLSA but fail to ensure that their EAP employees also qualify as exempt under the PMWA.

f the FLSA’s regulation exempting teachers, physicians and lawyers from the salary requirements (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.303(d) & .304(d));include any version of the FLSA’s regulation exempting computer professionals who are paid on an hourly basis (29 C.F.R. § 541.400);align the outside sales exemption under the PMWA with its federal counterpart (29 C.F.R. § 541.500);adopt the streamlined test for the EAP exemptions applicable to “highly compensated” employees (29 C.F.R. § 541.601);provide guidance regarding what it means to be paid on a “salary or fee basis”—including whether deductions from an exempt employee’s salary are authorized to the same extent they are permitted under the FLSA (29 C.F.R. § 541.602 - .606); andinclude several of the definitions set forth in the FLSA regulations, including: the definitions of “department of subdivision,” “two or more other employees,” or “particular weight”—all of which are relevant for the interpretation and application of the executive exemption (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.103-105);the definitions of “directly related to management or general business operations,” “discretion and independent judgment”—all of which are relevant for the interpretation and application of the administrative exemption (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.201-202); andthe definitions of “primary duty,” “customarily and regularly,” “directly and closely related” or any of the other provisions of 29 C.F.R. Subpart H.While DLI expressed an intent to “align” the PMWA more closely with federal regulations, the final regulation announced on October 17 falls far short of achieving that goal. DLI stated, however, that it would “look to federal law for guidance for interpreting its regulations.”

601); provide guidance regarding what it means to be paid on a “salary or fee basis”—including whether deductions from an exempt employee’s salary are authorized to the same extent they are permitted under the FLSA (29 C.F.R. § 541.602 - .606); and include several of the definitions set forth in the FLSA regulations, including: the definitions of “department of subdivision,” “two or more other employees,” or “particular weight”—all of which are relevant for the interpretation and application of the executive exemption (29 C.F.R. §§541.103-105); the definitions of “directly related to management or general business operations,” “discretion and independent judgment”—all of which are relevant for the interpretation and application of the administrative exemption (29 C.F.R. §§ 541.201-202); and the definitions of “primary duty,” “customarily and regularly,” “directly and closely related” or any of the other provisions of 29 C.F.R. Subpart H. In short, the DLI’s proposed amendments fall far short of their aspiration to “align” the duties tests for the EAP exemptions under Pennsylvania with their FLSA counterparts and to make them “consistent.” It is not clear how these differences would affect the application of the proposed EAP exemptions if they are adopted.

activities such as interviewing, selecting, and training of employees; setting and adjusting their rates of pay and hours of work; directing the work of employees; maintaining production or sales records for use in supervision or control; appraising employees’ productivity and efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or other changes in status; handling employee complaints and grievances; disciplining employees; planning the work; determining the techniques to be used; apportioning the work among the employees; determining the type of materials, supplies, machinery, equipment or tools to be used or merchandise to be bought, stocked and sold; controlling the flow and distribution of materials or merchandise and supplies; providing for the safety and security of the employees or the property; planning and controlling the budget; and monitoring or implementing legal compliance measures.29 CFR §541.102.The Regulations also tell you what a “Department or Subdivision” means at 29 CFR §541.103, that “two or more other employees” means “two full time employees or their equivalent”, 29 CFR §541.104; what “particular weight means when determining if an employee has the ability to effectively recommend, for example, hiring or firing”, 29 CFR §541.105; and finally, what happens when an employee has concurrent duties, 29 CFR §541.106.The concurrent duties section is particularly important when it comes to managers in the retail setting. The Regulations recognize that in retail, different rules apply:(b) For example, an assistant manager in a retail establishment may perform work such as serving customers, cooking food, stocking shelves and cleaning the establishment, but performance of such nonexempt work does not preclude the exemption if the assistant manager’s primary duty is management.

Whether the flight crew constitutes “a cust omarily recognized department or subdivision” within the employer’s management operations is a question of fact. If the Chief Pilot is, in fact, actually in charge of managing a recognized unit w ith a permanent status and a continuing function in the employer’s organization as discussed in 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 and otherwise meets the primary duty requirement of “management” ( see 29 C.F.R. § 541.102 ), the Chief Pilot may be eligible for the executive exemption.

We are unable to make a determination regarding the applicability of the executive exemption to Staffing Managers in this case, because there is insufficient information as to whether the Staffing Managers’ primary duty is management of a customarily recognized department or subdivision with a permanent status and a continuing function, or a mere collection of employees assigned from time to time to a specific job or series of jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.103(a).This opinion is based exclusively on the facts and circumstances described in your request and is given based on your representation, express or implied, that you have provided a full and fair description of all the facts and circumstances that would be pertinent to our consideration of the question presented.

200. We are unable to make a determination regarding the applicability of the executive exemption to Staffing Managers in this case, because there is insufficient information as to whether the Staffing Managers’ primary duty is management of a customarily recognized department or subdivision with a permanent status and a continuing function, or a mere collection of employees assigned from time to time to a specific job or series of jobs.See29 C.F.R. § 541.103(a).This opinion is based exclusively on the facts and circumstances described in your request and is given based on your representation, express or implied, that you have provided a full and fair description of all the facts and circumstances that would be pertinent to our consideration of the question presented.

The regulations set out a very broad meaning (in fact, subjective), of the term "primary duty" which discusses an employee who spends more than 50 per cent of his time in "production or sales work" but, while so engaged, supervises other employees and does other managerial work. (29 C.F.R. §541.103) As will be explained later, the DLSE policy is to give credit for all time spent in managerial work; but not to credit time toward managerial time .when the actual work the employee is "engaged in" at the moment is production or sales.8 The federal regulations require the exercise of "independent judgment" in order to qualify for exemption as an administrative employee, but, unlike the IWC Orders, there is no requirement that the employee exercise "independent judgment" to qualify for the executive (managerial) exemp­ tion.9 If the employee is engaged as a trainer, however, such duties are simply part of the job classification and may not be counteo toward managerial duties unless the other criteria involving supervision are present.10 One of the most striking examples of the difference between the IWC Orders and the enforcement of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act is the fact that there is no "remuneration" or salary test for the professional employee exemption under the IWC Orde