Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Preparing for the DOL's Final Rule on FSLA's 'White-Collar' Exemptions
The employment law community remains abuzz with predictions as to exactly when the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will issue its Final Rule setting the new minimum salary level for employees to qualify for “white-collar” exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) overtime requirements. The salary level proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register in July 2015 would more than double the current salary level for “white-collar” employees to be exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. Such an increase in the salary level would have wide-reaching implications for employers and employees alike. DOL Secretary Thomas E. Perez has predicted that, “on an annual basis, workers will get roughly $1.2 to $1.3 billion in additional wages as a result of this rule.”
While the Office of Management and Budget released a timetable Nov. 19 indicating that the Final Rule would issue by July 2016, Perez has been quoted in recent media reports stating that the DOL is planning to publish the Final Rule this spring. This is in contrast to widely disseminated media reports of comments made by Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith at the American Bar Association's Labor and Employment Law Conference in early November that the Final Rule would be released in “late 2016.” Although it is impossible to fully predict when the Final Rule will be published, employers should be proactively assessing the DOL's NPRM and its impact on their workforce and work flow well in advance of the publication of the Final Rule.
Background
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.