|Texas Paralegals and the New
BY JIM BARBER, CP
The U. S. Department of Labor (DOL) released proposed rule changes
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) for public comment
on March 28, 2003. During the ninety-day comment period 75,280
comments were received. The DOL indicated over 90% of these
75,280 comments were form letters generated by organizations affiliated
with the AFL-CIO expressing a general opposition. This left
approximately 600 substantive analysis comments on the proposed regulations.
Sadly, only a handful of these were received from individual paralegals,
paralegal groups and associations.
At the national level, The National Federation of Paralegal Associations,
Inc. (NFPA) submitted comments, where the National Association of
Legal Assistants (NALA) did not. Notably, most statewide associations
did not submit comments.
The Legal Assistants Division of the State Bar of Texas (LAD) did
not submit comments during the ninety-day comment period. LAD,
as a part of the State Bar of Texas (SBOT), must submit any comments
to the SBOT for lengthy review and ultimate approval prior to their
release. Because the SBOT process is not only lengthy, but time
consuming, submission of comments by LAD could not be accomplished
within the comment period.
Unfortunately, other legal assistant organizations in the State of
Texas, indicated they were going to follow LAD, which resulted in
their not submitting comments either. Thus, final DOL regulations
were released without input from the majority of paralegals.
DOL documentation under occupation code 234 (legal assistants) shows
144,284 hourly and 210,917 salaried, for a total of 355,201,
paralegals covered by the FLSA and subject to the Part 541 salary
On April 20, 2004, despite fierce political controversy, accompanied
by a vigorous debate in the U.S. Congress and the media, the DOL announced
its final regulations governing overtime eligibility for “white
collar” workers pursuant to the FLSA. The DOL also unveiled
a new website, titled “FairPay” (found at www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/main.htm)
to help explain the changes.
The full texts of the regulations were published on April 23, 2004
in the federal register. A complete copy of those regulations
may be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a040423c.html
under Wage and Hour Division.
Under the new regulations the FLSA’s “white collar”
exemption rule increases the salary floor under which employees must
be paid overtime. Under the final regulations those earning
$455 per week (the equivalent of $23,660 per year) or less are non-exempt
and automatically entitled to time-and-a-half pay for any hours worked
over 40 hours per week.
On the other hand, Section 541.601 in the final regulations states:
“An employee with total annual compensation of at least
$100,000 is deemed exempt under section 13(a)(1) of the Act if the
employee customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the
exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative
or professional employee identified in subparts B, C or D of this
Therefore, highly compensated employees, who earn at least
$100,000, may be exempt and not entitled to overtime pay.
One controversial area in the old exemption regulations was the “duties
test.” In the new rules the “duties test”
was simplified and the so-called “long tests” for lower
paid employees were deleted. This leaves one standard test for
each category of exemption. Historically, these test provisions
have been the catalyst for most FLSA litigation.
The “discretion and independent judgment” requirement
for administrative exemption was retained. The confusion and
discussion concerning the boundaries of that requirement will likely
Confusion also existed under prior regulations as to how paralegals
should be classified. For example, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, in Reich v. Page & Addison,
No. 3:91-CV-3655-P, applying the former regulations, by jury decision
entered March 10, 1994, found paralegals to be exempt under
the administrative exemption. However the DOL, in an opinion
letter dated February 19, 1998, used the former regulations to determine
that paralegals should be considered non-exempt. Confused
In the face of the confusion, the DOL did not alter its position concerning
paralegals in the final regulations. Clarification arrived with
Section 541.301(e) (7), which states:
and legal assistants generally do not qualify as exempt learned professionals
because an advanced specialized academic degree is not a standard
prerequisite for entry into the field. Although many
paralegals possess general four-year advanced degrees, most specialized
paralegal programs are two-year associate degree programs from a community
college or equivalent institution. However, the learned professional
exemption is available for paralegals who possess advanced specialized
degrees in other professional fields and apply advanced knowledge
in that field in the performance of their duties. For example,
if a law firm hires an engineer as a paralegal to provide expert advice
on product liability cases or to assist on patent matters, that engineer
would qualify for exemption.” (emphasis added)
Bottom line, the DOL continues to consider paralegals as non-exempt
employees who should be paid overtime. This position is
consistent with the prior DOL opinion letter dated February 19, 1998,
where the department determined paralegals should be considered non-exempt.
Under the learned professional exemption the key phrase seems to be
“prerequisite for entry into the field.”
Until the paralegal profession universally requires a specialized
academic degree as a standard prerequisite for entry into the field,
it appears paralegals do not fall under the learned professional exemption.
Section 541.301 (e) (7) discusses “other professional fields.”
At first blush it seems that if a paralegal held a degree in paralegal
studies (this field), such degree would not meet the departments’
new requirements. Thus rests a controversy for another day.
Degrees aside, the department in Section 541.301(d) added the phrase
“and performs substantially the same work” to
the final regulation. Often in today’s workplace employees
obtain advanced knowledge through a combination of work experience
and intellectual instruction. When this occurs, focusing on
the actual work performed of the non-degreed employee should provide
a guiding light to determine if the employee qualifies as an exempt
learned professional. Leslie v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.,
899 F. Supp 1578 (S.D. Miss. 1995).
In today’s 21st Century workplace, paralegal professionals who
attain their advanced knowledge through a non-traditional path, possess
the same knowledge level and perform the same work as the traditionally
degreed paralegal professionals should be classified and paid in the
same manner as those degreed paralegal professionals. Equal
treatment for degreed and non-degreed employees who perform the same
work is common in employment law today.
For those paralegals seeking to trade their overtime protection for
exempt status, Section 541.304 Practice of law or medicine in subpart
(a) (1) states:
“Any employee who is the holder
of a valid license or certificate permitting the practice
of law or medicine or any of their branches and is actually
engaged in the practice thereof” (emphasis added)
Although licensure and regulation are very complicated issues and
exceed the scope of this article, a brief brush with this subject
is in order.
In the past few years across the United States, various states have
entertained regulation of paralegals through various forms, including
licensure and certification. The most recent activity is in
North Carolina where, on April 23, 2004, the Council of the State
Bar voted unanimously to publish the Plan for Certification of
Paralegals for a 90-day comment period. This places North
Carolina paralegals one step closer to certification. Current
information about this proposal may be found at http://www.apps-nc.org/status.html.
Some states, like California, Florida, Louisiana and Texas have already
implemented certifications. Nationally, NFPA and NALA offer
credentials. Because a paralegal obtains a certification does not
mean the paralegal is regulated. The paralegal profession is
largely unregulated, which occasionally hinders the profession as
a whole and those paralegal professionals within it.
Should the day arrive when paralegals are uniformly regulated, either
by licensure or certification, that may be the day a foothold; is
received for paralegal exemption under Section 541.304 (a) (1) as
a branch of the practice of law. It is well established that
the paralegal profession exists as a direct result of the practice
of law. Arguably, the paralegal profession is a direct branch
of such practice. Stay tuned for more developments with this
The DOL primarily relies upon the Supreme Court’s decision in
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 456 (1997) for authority to
define and delimit the final regulations. See Also: Addison
v. Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc., 322 U.S. 607, 613 n.6 (1944);
Spradling v. City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, 95 F.3d 1492, 1495
(10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1149 (1997); Dalheim
v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1224 (5th Cir. 1990).
Section 541.4, of the new regulations establishes minimum standards
that may be exceeded, but cannot be waived or reduced. See Brooklyn
Savings Bank v. O’Neil, 324 U.S. 697, 706 (1945).
Employers, on their own or through a collective bargaining agreement,
are not precluded by the FLSA from providing higher wages, shorter
workweeks or higher overtime premium (double time, for example).
NLRB v. R&H Coal Co., 992 F2d 46 (4th Cir. 1993).
Nothing in the FLSA relieves an employer from its contractual obligation
under a collective bargaining agreement.
In a unique move, out of concern for how the final federal overtime
regulations may affect Illinois residents, Governor Rod Blagojevich
(D) signed state legislation on April 2, 2004 exempting Illinois from
federal overtime rules. The Governor took this action prior
to the release of the final regulations. Federal law provides
that if a state or local law establishes a higher standard than the
FLSA, the higher standard applies. See Section 18 of the FLSA,
29 U.S.C. § 218.
The final regulations take effect on August 23, 2004. With only
a few short months to implementation, employers may wish to look at
non-supervisory employees classified as exempt in the administrative
and professional categories. Of all employees, these are
at highest risk of being misclassified under the new regulations.
A small chance exists that FLSA’s regulations could be derailed
under the Congressional Review Act. That Act gives Congress
60 session days after the April 23, 2004 publication of the final
regulations to overturn them. (Congress used the Act in 2001
to overturn the Clinton Administration’s ergonomics regulations.)
Congress needs a simple majority vote of both House and Senate to
rescind the final regulations. If that vote did occur, President
Bush would likely veto the action. The Senate would then need
67 votes (a two-thirds majority) to overturn his veto. An override
vote appears unlikely given the current make-up of the Senate.
May 4th, 2004, may prove to be a historical day for the Overtime regulations
in the Senate. It began when Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., introduced
an amendment that passed on a 99-0 vote, which would preserve the
current regulatory overtime status for 55 occupations or job classifications.
Then, Sen. Tom Harkin, D. Iowa, introduced an amendment that passed
on a 52-47 vote, which would allow only the increased salary requirements
from the new final regulations to be enforced, while preserving the
previous overtime regulations. Both amendments were offered
to an unrelated tax bill (S. 1637). Now the issues move to the
House for further consideration.
The overtime regulations may very well become an issue in the upcoming
U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao on April 27, 2004, named a
new enforcement task force within the Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
of the DOL to, as she puts it, “maximize” worker’s
rights under the final regulations. Non-exempt employees may
file complaints concerning overtime pay with the DOL either by mail
or in person at any WHD District Office. DOL indicates their
investigators are discreet and will seek permission from the complainant
to use their name if required, during an investigation. Additional
information concerning complaints may be found at http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/complaint.htm
or by contacting the WHD toll-free between the hours of 8 a.m. to
5 p.m., in your local time zone at (866) 487-9243.
Will paralegals suffer as a result of the final regulations?
Do the final regulations mean an end to the lawsuit frenzy?
What will the ultimate impact on the workforce be? These and
many more questions will be answered only with the passage of time.
It should be noted that federal and state laws regarding overtime
are very detailed, containing several exceptions and caveats that
cannot be fully addressed in this article. Employers and employees
are advised to seek guidance from legal counsel regarding the handling
of overtime matters. Employers should also seek the advice of
legal counsel before refusing to pay employees overtime. This
article is not intended nor should it be considered legal advice.
Each overtime employment issue is unique and specific. Every
employer and employee is encouraged to seek guidance from legal counsel
concerning your specific overtime matter.
Jim Barber is an accomplished author with articles published in various
legal publications and journals. .
[2004-2007] All rights reserved including the right of reproduction
in whole or in part in any form.
DFW Paralegal Service is not an attorney or law firm and does not
provide legal advice. Nothing in this information is intended nor
should it be considered legal advice. Each legal matter is unique
and specific; as such DFW Paralegal Service encourages every individual
and business to seek guidance from legal counsel concerning their
specific legal matter. DFW Paralegal Service provides paralegal services
only. "We are not attorneys licensed to practice law in Texas
and may not give legal advice or accept fees for legal advice."
The information contained in this website
is provided as a service to the community, and does not constitute
legal advice. We try to provide quality information, but we make
no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness,
or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this website
and its associated sites and we make no claim that any of the information,
articles, free forms, i.e. complimentary forms contained in this
website are appropriate for your particular needs. As legal advice
must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and
laws are constantly changing, nothing provided herein should be
used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.
By using content and information from
this website you agree to the following:
(1) You agree you will not rely on any information contained in
this website without personally consulting an attorney. (2) You
agree that the information, articles, handbook, free forms i.e.
complimentary forms contained in this website may not be appropriate
for your particular needs and are offered for informational purposes
only. (3) You agree that any viewing and/or use of the information,
articles, handbook, free forms, i.e. complimentary forms contained
in this website by you is used at your own risk. (4) You agree that
DFW Paralegal Service does not guarantee or warranty any of the
information, articles, handbooks, free forms i.e. complimentary
forms contained in this website. (5) You agree to indemnify and
hold DFW Paralegal Service, its affiliates, agents, employees, officers,
directors, notaries, harmless from any claim, litigation, damages
and defense related to any viewing and/or use of the content and
information of this website including but not limited to the viewing
and/or use of the information, articles, handbook, free forms i.e.
complimentary forms. (6) No attorney/client relationship is created
between you and DFW Paralegal Service by your viewing and/or use
of any information, articles, handbooks or free forms contained
in this website. (7) DFW Paralegal Service is not an attorney licensed
to practice law in Texas and may not give legal advice or accept
fees for legal advice. (8) If for any reason you do not agree to
all the terms and conditions contained herein, you should leave
this website immediately, do not download, copy, view or use any
content, information, articles, handbooks and free forms contained
within this website.
Clients Across the United States"
"Se Habla Espanol" - Sirviendo clientes
en los Estados Unidos
© Copyright 2004 - 2014 DFW Paralegal Service - All rights reserved.
No part of this website may be reprinted or reproduced in whole
or in part without permission
from DFW Paralegal Service
Executive Offices: Fort Worth, Texas
(800) 758-4882 / Fax: (800) 758-4882 - email@example.com