A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

What The OT Expansion Rule Means for Employees

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Back in 2014, President Obama had directed Department of Labor (“DOL”) Secretary, Thomas Perez, to streamline and modernize minimum wage and OT exemptions. As a result of this direction, the DOL has finalized an OT expansion rule. Effective December 1, 2016, federal OT protections and regulations will expand to cover over 4 million people. What does this mean in a nutshell? That many more people will become eligible for OT and ultimately OT pay under federal labor laws.

How is this a game-changer for workers throughout the country? Before this OT expansion, if you were a salaried employee, you were only eligible for these protections if you made less than around $23,000 a year. That was a pretty low threshold. Now, with this current law the salary cap doubles at nearly $47,000. The new OT exemption guidelines even extend to highly compensated employees who make over $100,000 a year.

The OT expansion does not stop there. With the idea that salaries will only go up, the salary cap will be amended every three years to remain at the 40th percentile. Keep in mind this is a law not all encompassing and based on salary amount alone. Even if a salaried worker meets the cap, jobs that are primarily professional, executive or administrative in nature are still exempt.

California already has some of the highest protections for employees in the nation. This only strengthens the OT and minimum wage laws that exist in this state. With OT expansion laws going into effect this winter, it is very important that both employers and employees understand how this impacts their own situation. For more information it is very important to seek experienced employment law counsel in California.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.