AUGUST 2025 | 39 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. 1) Effective July 1, 2024, the rule raised the minimum salary for the EAP exemption from $684 a week to $844 a week; 2) Effective Jan. 1, 2025, the rule raised the minimum salary for the EAP exemption from $844 a week to $1,128 a week; and 3) The rule implemented a mechanism for an automatic increase in the minimum salary level based on contemporary earnings data every three years.62 The chamber argued the 2024 rule exceeded the DOL’s authority because it increased “the minimum salary for the EAP Exemption to a level that effectively displace[d] the duties-based inquiry required by the FLSA’s text with a predominant salary-level test.”63 The chamber noted three issues: The updating mechanisms were in excess of the statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations granted to the DOL; the rule was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion; and it was not otherwise in accordance with the law.64 The Court’s Application of Loper Bright The court applied Loper Bright, noting, “Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” and the “exercise of such independent judgment ... is rooted in the ‘solemn duty’ imposed on courts under the Constitution.”65 The court quoted Loper Bright at length, observing that 5 USC §706 of the APA “directs that ‘to the extent necessary to decision and when presented, [a] reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action.”66 The APA also requires a reviewing court to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... not in accordance with the law.”67 “Courts decide legal questions by applying their own judgment.”68 Even though a statute may authorize an agency to exercise a degree of discretion or even expressly delegate authority to an agency, “the role of reviewing court under the APA is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits.”69 The court noted that this entailed three different aspects: 1) Recognizing Constitution delegations; 2) Fixing boundaries of delegated authority; and 3) Ensuring the agency has engaged in “reasoned decisionmaking” within the established boundaries.70 The court noted that statutory interpretation starts with the text of the statute, but if there is an ambiguity “about the scope of an agency’s own power ... abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate.”71 Plano Chamber of Commerce Analysis and Holding The court did an exhaustive review of the DOL’s actions in regard to the EAP exemption and the setting of a minimum salary basis for the EAP exemption, reviewing all the salary bases from 1938 to the present. The court found that the 2024 rule was an unlawful exercise of the DOL’s power. Some of the key findings of the court include: The terms professional, executive and administrative are defined based on their functions or duties – “It’s their duties and not their dollars that really matter.”72 The DOL does have the power to define and delimit the terms of the EAP exemption, which does include the “creation of regulations imposing a minimum salary level for the [EAP] exemption.”73 However, the DOL exceeded the authority delegated by Congress.74 The DOL After the 5th Circuit’s decision in Mayfield,58 one might believe the DOL’s authority to raise the salary basis for the EAP exemption was well established. However, such is not the case.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==