{"id":309319,"date":"2025-10-16T23:57:12","date_gmt":"2025-10-16T23:57:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/309319\/"},"modified":"2025-10-16T23:57:12","modified_gmt":"2025-10-16T23:57:12","slug":"dol-publishes-first-round-of-flsa-opinion-letters-under-trump-administration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/309319\/","title":{"rendered":"DOL Publishes First Round of FLSA Opinion Letters Under Trump Administration"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor\u2019s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued opinion letters addressing issues relating to tip pooling, joint employment, and regular rate of pay calculation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). \u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Opinion letters are official written opinions by the WHD explaining how the FLSA and other laws apply to specific workplace situations.\u00a0 Opinion letters are not binding authority but provide persuasive guidance and insight into the agency\u2019s positions and priorities.\u00a0 Although the practice of issuing opinion letters dates back to the 1930s, the level of activity of the program has historically varied depending on the administration in power.\u00a0 In 2017, after a hiatus during the Obama administration, the DOL reinstated the opinion letter program, ultimately publishing 80 opinion letters during the first Trump Administration.\u00a0 The practice fell out of favor again under President Biden.\u00a0 In June, Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling <a title=\"An Expanded Version of the DOL Opinion Letter Program Returns\" href=\"https:\/\/www.hunton.com\/hunton-retail-law-resource\/an-expanded-version-of-the-dol-opinion-letter-program-returns-what-do-retail-employers-need-to-know\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">announced the relaunch<\/a> and expansion of the DOL\u2019s opinion letter program.\u00a0 The September 30 letters, authored by WHD Acting Administrator James Macy, are the agency\u2019s first batch of opinion letters since the announcement.<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u201cHorizontal\u201d Joint Employment<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In <a target=\"_blank\" title=\"FLSA 2025-05\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/sites\/dolgov\/files\/WHD\/opinion-letters\/FLSA\/FLSA-2025-05.pdf\">FLSA 2025-05<\/a>, the WHD considered whether a hostess who worked for a hotel restaurant and a members-only club located on the restaurant\u2019s second floor was jointly employed by both establishments. \u00a0The hostess was employed by the restaurant at the rate of $28.00 per hour and was offered shifts at the members club at the same rate of pay.\u00a0 The hostess would occasionally work at the members club while being \u201cclocked in\u201d at the restaurant.\u00a0 The DOL concluded that the hostess was jointly employed by the restaurant and club, meaning all hours worked at both locations in a single workweek must be combined for FLSA purposes, and both entities would be jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages under the FLSA.<\/p>\n<p>Although the restaurant and club used different payroll and timekeeping systems and purportedly were separate legal entities, the DOL found the establishments were sufficiently associated with each other with respect to the hostess\u2019s employment to demonstrate a horizontal joint-employment relationship.\u00a0 The DOL noted several indicators of joint employment, including (a) the operational integration of the restaurant and club (including their physical proximity, common kitchen, and similar menus), (b) the seeming coordination of rates of pay and work schedules between the two facilities, and (c) common management support.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>Tip Pooling and \u201cCustomarily and Regularly\u201d Tipped Employees<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The WHD in <a target=\"_blank\" title=\"FLSA 2025-3\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/sites\/dolgov\/files\/WHD\/opinion-letters\/FLSA\/FLSA-2025-03.pdf\">FLSA 2025-3<\/a> was asked whether an employer may include front-of-house oyster shuckers in a restaurant\u2019s tip pool with servers paid with a tip credit.\u00a0 The FLSA permits an employer to satisfy a portion of its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees by taking a tip credit equal to the difference between the required direct wage (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 per hour). Employers may require an employee for whom the employer takes a tip credit to contribute to a tip pool only if the pool is limited to employees who \u201ccustomarily and regularly receive tips.\u201d The letter explains that \u201cto be an individual who customarily and regularly receives tips, an employee must engage in service-related functions and have sufficient interaction with the customers who leave tips, a portion of which are subsequently contributed to a tip pool.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The DOL analyzed the job duties of the front-of-house oyster shuckers and concluded that they were employees that customarily and regularly receive tips, and therefore the employer could require servers, for whom the employer takes a tip credit, to share tips in a pool with them. The DOL analogized the shuckers to sommeliers and sushi chefs, who have long been regarding as employees who customarily and regularly receive tips.\u00a0 Shuckers directly serviced customers by detailing oyster offerings, making suggestions regarding the offerings, and answering questions about the offerings, similar to how sommeliers explain the wine list to customers.\u00a0 Shuckers also prepared and served oysters in plain view of customers, like front-of-house sushi chefs.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>\u201cEmergency Pay\u201d and Regular Rate of Pay for Overtime<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Finally, in <a target=\"_blank\" title=\"FLSA 2025-4\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dol.gov\/sites\/dolgov\/files\/WHD\/opinion-letters\/FLSA\/FLSA-2025-04.pdf\">FLSA 2025-4<\/a>, the DOL addressed whether \u201cemergency pay\u201d provided to firefighters for hours worked during officially-declared emergencies should be included in the regular rate when calculating overtime.\u00a0 The city had a written policy through which firefighters were paid a premium payment for every hour worked during an \u201cemergency period.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The regular rate of pay for overtime purposes includes \u201call remuneration for employment,\u201d subject to certain statutory exclusions.\u00a0 The DOL determined that the payment was not excludable as a discretionary bonus and did not fall under any other exclusion.\u00a0 For a payment to qualify as an excludable discretionary bonus, three conditions are required: (1) the fact and amount of the payment must be \u201cdetermined at the sole discretion of the employer\u201d; (2) the employer\u2019s determination must occur \u201cat or near the end of the period\u201d when the employee\u2019s work was performed; and (3) the payment must not be made pursuant to \u201cany prior contract, agreement, or promise\u201d causing employees to expect such payments regularly. \u00a0The DOL explained that even if the written policy was not a \u201cprior contract, agreement, or promise,\u201d the first two conditions were not satisfied because the policy left no discretion as to whether to provide emergency pay when work is performed, and the fact and amount of pay were determined well before the work is performed.\u00a0 Thus, the \u201cemergency pay\u201d must be included in the employees\u2019 regular rate used to calculate the proper overtime rate.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Although these opinions do not reflect significant policy or interpretive changes, employers should expect a steady flow of opinion letters from the WHD over the next three years.\u00a0 The agency\u2019s priorities should also become more clear with the recent confirmation of Andrew Rogers as WHD Administrator. \u00a0Notably, employers should not necessarily expect a wave of pro-employer opinions under this administration.\u00a0 Two of the three opinions discussed in this post were sought by employees, and the DOL sided with the employee in both cases.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor\u2019s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued opinion letters addressing&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":309320,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[64,420,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-309319","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-jobs","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-jobs","10":"tag-united-states","11":"tag-unitedstates","12":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115386557750453547","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=309319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309319\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/309320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=309319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=309319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=309319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}