Learned Professional Exemption

[justalayman]

As for equal pay level, there is a big disparity in the pay of the employees in this department, as much as $20,000 a year for doing same job. Just happens that she is the most senior person in the department.

Is the proposed level of pay at or near the top of the highest hourly rate? If so I stand by my response. If you are considering placing her much below the highest paid hourly employee, you really need to have a reason why lest it is likely to appear as retaliation.

 

[cbg]

So far I'm with JAL.

If you were to leave her pay as it is but change her to non-exempt, how far above the next-highest paid employee doing THE SAME JOB would she be? I don't want to know about the rest of the department - I want to know about her SPECIFIC job.

 

[cricketthedog]

So far I'm with JAL.

If you were to leave her pay as it is but change her to non-exempt, how far above the next-highest paid employee doing THE SAME JOB would she be? I don't want to know about the rest of the department - I want to know about her SPECIFIC job.

When I said department, I really meant the group of people in the department that are have the same duties as her, approximately 15 people have the same job duties. As for her pay just changed to an hourly rate, she would be approximately $2 an hour more than the next highest person doing same duties. But that person is more than $4 higher than the lowest paid person having the same duties. Big disparity for same job duties.

 

[justalayman]

what actually limits you from simply converting her to an hourly rate that equals her current salary? After all, she is already earning the greater amount now. What would be the difference? Are your pay schedules written in a contract?


The lowed paid person in the department will be approximately $6 per hour less than she would be making but guess what; she is right now effectively already. Why is there a need to reduce her pay?

and you said something about needing to extend the pay range for the department should you keep her at an hourly rate that matches her current salary. How much are you talking about needing to raise the self imposed limit?




for some reason I am just not getting this. That department's overhead will remain the same. It makes no sense that you cannot keep her at the current pay level whether it be hourly or salary.




Here's an idea: continue her on salary at the current salary but simply reclassify her as non-exempt. Problem solved?

 

[cbg]

One last question. Do you have actual pay grades with actual ranges? As in, Job Title ABC is in Job grade 52, and grade 52 has a range between $xx.xx per hour and $yy.yy per hour?

Or is it a more informal setting with "most people doing job ABC get somewhere around xx.xx or so"?

 

[cricketthedog]

One last question. Do you have actual pay grades with actual ranges? As in, Job Title ABC is in Job grade 52, and grade 52 has a range between $xx.xx per hour and $yy.yy per hour?

Or is it a more informal setting with "most people doing job ABC get somewhere around xx.xx or so"?

Yes we have pay grades (25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55,....up to 100) that have ranges. Most of which overlap. The employee we are discussing is a grade 50. Every employee in a grade 40 or above is exempt. So reclassifying her to non-exempt, her grade would have to be reduced to a 35 to comply with current protocol. As of now pay grade 35 and 50 do not overlap.

 

[ecmst12]

That sounds like it would be a big demotion that she does not deserve. What actual reason do you have for limiting non exempt positions to grade 39 and below?

 

[cbg]

I was prepared to say that as long as you have actual pay grades you were safe from a retaliation claim, but with that huge a discrepancy I'm not so sure. She's wrong, btw, that ANY reduction in pay would be considered retaliatory since you do have actual pay grades with actual ranges but even if you won the retaliation claim (and I'm not saying you wouldn't eventually) you'd still have to defend it, and I have a feeling, from what you're telling me, that you might end up with some serious problems before you were through. You're already on the hook for one massive mis-calculation; truly, whoever determined that this job fell under the Learned Professional exemption did not have a CLUE what they were doing. That's a big enough mistake so that it's almost certain that you've got other mis-classifications in there as well.

I trust that you have corporate counsel? You need to involve them here. You might want to see about splitting the difference but this babe has you over a barrel and you're going to have yourself a time finding a way out of it.

 

[cricketthedog]

What actual reason do you have for limiting non exempt positions to grade 39 and below?

Not really sure as this was in place prior to my employment here. I think it is just a way of cutting payroll to be honest.

 

[ecmst12]

Sounds to me like it's time to trash that rule.

 

[cricketthedog]

I realize we made a mistake and will have to pay her back pay. But what about going forward? Can we add some duties to her to make the learned professional exemption apply? Such as mentoring/training new hires, writing/updating procedures that must be followed, analyzing data from previous jobs to maximize output/quality of future jobs... But basically her duties will still be setting up, operating and cleaning equipment 70% of the time.

 

[Zigner]

I realize we made a mistake and will have to pay her back pay. But what about going forward? Can we add some duties to her to make the learned professional exemption apply? Such as mentoring/training new hires, writing/updating procedures that must be followed, analyzing data from previous jobs to maximize output/quality of future jobs... But basically her duties will still be setting up, operating and cleaning equipment 70% of the time.

She is not an exempt employee.

 

[RRevak]

I have a question for the pro's.


When the explanation states "prolonged education" what exactly does that mean? Are we referring to many years of schooling or something more along the lines of a certification?

 

[cbg]

I realize we made a mistake and will have to pay her back pay. But what about going forward? Can we add some duties to her to make the learned professional exemption apply? Such as mentoring/training new hires, writing/updating procedures that must be followed, analyzing data from previous jobs to maximize output/quality of future jobs... But basically her duties will still be setting up, operating and cleaning equipment 70% of the time.

There are no duties you can add to that position that will make her qualify for the learned professional exemption. You MIGHT - underline might - be able to add sufficient duties to qualify her for the administrative exemption. But if it has to be the learned professional or none, it's none. VALID uses of the learned professional exemption would be college professor, doctor, lawyer, scientist, architect, and so on. It's simply not going to happen with a job that involved the duties you've described.

 

[cbg]

I have a question for the pro's.


When the explanation states "prolonged education" what exactly does that mean? Are we referring to many years of schooling or something more along the lines of a certification?

Read my post above. I think we were posting at the same time.