From the Legal Hotline (1-877-NEWS-LAW)
Q. I have a quick question. We are going through a political fire down here over election qualifying. Quite a few elected officials have made comments on social media (via posts on their Facebook page), and I’m wondering if we are OK to use these posts in the paper?
A. The paper can use the public officials’ posts/comments on their public facing Facebook platforms since there is no expectation of privacy and nothing triggering any copyright concerns.
Q. Regarding the difference between laying off and firing with cause, am I correct that if someone is laid off rather than fired with cause, they can claim unemployment which increases reemployment liability whereas someone fired with cause does not incur the same reemployment liability cost?
A. In short, I think you are correct. In Florida, as in most states, if the employee loses his or her job in a layoff, the employee will qualify for benefits.
If the employee is fired for job-related misconduct, he or she will not qualify for benefits. Examples of job-related misconduct include failing a drug test, stealing from the company, or committing insubordination. Not being able to meet employer’s performance or productivity expectations generally doesn’t qualify as misconduct, if employee has made a good faith effort.
Florida employers pay reemployment tax. Employers are charged a tax for each employee employed with their business. Employer payments go into a fund from which money is paid to eligible, unemployed Floridians who file claims. If a former employee(s) received reemployment assistance benefits, the state agency (Fla. Dept. of Econ. Opportunity) may determine that the employer’s reemployment tax account be charged.
Q. Our county is looking at possibly using its official website to carry public notices and legal ads, as allowed by s. 50.0311, F.S. (if certain requirements are met). We are pushing back against this proposal and would like talking points to provide to commissioners and staff and for editorials and news reports.
A. Here are some short points you might consider using.
Q. What is the latest on the new FSLA wage and hour regulations, in particular DOL’s 2024 final rule increasing the white-collar (EAP) exemption salary threshold and related court challenges?
A. As reported previously, DOL’s 2024 final rule, which took effect July 1, increased the minimum salary for application of the EAP exemption to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). Another increase is slated for Jan. 1, 2025, raising the salary floor to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually). The January 2025 increase would result in an approximately 60.6% increase from the 2019 minimum salary and would likely result in the removal of a far larger number of workers from coverage by the EAP Exemption.
Recent cases have upheld DOL’s general authority to define the “white collar” exemptions in terms of a salary level requirement as part of challenges to the agency’s 2019 rule. However, these cases do not address challenges to the Biden Admin. 2024 final rule increasing the salary level in two stages. These lawsuits are pending. As a result, it is still an open question as to whether the DOL has set a floor so high that it effectively, and impermissibly, negates the duties test.
The takeaway from all this is that the 2024 minimum salary rule remains in effect, at least for now. Employers must continue to comply with the new minimum salary floor and prepare for a Jan. 1 increase by raising the salaries of exempt employees who are paid below the new floor, reclassifying those employees as nonexempt, or limiting employee hours so employees do not work overtime.