Wisconsin joins 20 states to challenge federal overtime rule

In addition to doubling the threshold for salaried employees from $23,660 ($455/ eek) to $47,486 ($913/week), this new rule will also continue to impact employers and employees around the country without public comment or Congressional oversite every three years due to an automatic indexing mechanism that will continue to move the goalpost, regardless of current economic conditions.

“We believe that many employers across our state and the country_large and small alike_will not be able to meet the high cost of these ongoing rate changes, and as a result, will be forced to curtail hiring or even lay off employees”, said Kristin McMillan, president of the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce.

In May, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a new rule updating regulations determining which white-collar, salaried employees are entitled to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s minimum wage and overtime pay protections.

Schmidt called the initiative part of a “cascade of unauthorized rules and regulations emerging from Washington in the final months of the Obama administration”.

Republican Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Eastern Texas, urging it to block implementation before the regulation takes effect on December 1.

Attorney generals in Texas and Nevada on Tuesday sued on behalf of 21 states, including OH, over the U.S. Department of Labor’s new overtime rule. As under the rule, the employer must repeal “white collar exemption” along with more than double of salary threshold with which an employee would get paid for his overtime too.

“Once again, President Obama is trying to unilaterally rewrite the law”, Mr. Paxton said in the statement. They double the annual salary threshold that allows companies to deny overtime to almost $47,500, up from $23,660.

Other states joining the lawsuit are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. The plaintiffs say that means stakeholders won’t have the chance to give their input before the massive changes take effect.