Restoring Overtime Pay Act of 2026
The Restoring Overtime Pay Act of 2026 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to raise the salary level that workers must meet to be treated as exempt from federal overtime pay rules under the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions. The bill sets a phased-in minimum salary threshold starting at $45,000, then increasing to $55,000 in 2027, $65,000 in 2028, and $75,000 in 2029, before tying the threshold in 2030 and beyond to the 55th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers nationwide.
The bill also requires automatic annual updates to the salary threshold based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data, with notice published in advance by the Department of Labor. It directs BLS to publish quarterly earnings data by census region and allows the Secretary of Labor to set an even higher threshold through rulemaking, so long as the methodology can be updated over time. In addition, the bill narrows the duties test for the exemption by reducing the amount of nonexempt work permitted from less than 40 percent to not less than 20 percent, and by clarifying that the nonexempt work must not be directly or closely related to executive or administrative duties.
If enacted, the bill would significantly expand overtime eligibility for salaried employees by making it harder for employers to classify lower- and middle-income workers as exempt. It would affect employers covered by the FLSA, especially businesses that rely on salaried managers, supervisors, and professional staff who currently fall below the proposed salary threshold or spend substantial time on nonexempt duties. The bill would also increase the Department of Labor’s role in administering and updating overtime exemption standards.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce, with no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts provided. Based on the bill’s structure and sponsors, the general sentiment appears supportive of expanding overtime protections and raising pay for workers who are currently exempted from overtime rules. Because no debate record is included, there is no documented opposition in the provided materials, but the main policy tension is likely between worker pay protections and employer concerns about increased labor costs and reduced flexibility in classifying salaried employees.
Notable points of contention would likely center on the size and pace of the salary increases, the automatic indexing mechanism, and the reduced duties threshold. Employers and business groups may object to the higher fixed thresholds and the requirement for annual updates without new rulemaking, while labor advocates are likely to support the bill as a way to restore overtime eligibility and prevent erosion of the exemption standard over time.
The bill would amend Section 13 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to impose a statutory salary floor for the white-collar overtime exemptions and to require automatic annual updates tied to national wage data. It would also change the duties test for the exemption by limiting the amount of nonexempt work an exempt employee may perform, thereby narrowing the scope of employees who can be treated as exempt from overtime pay. These changes would directly affect employers, salaried workers, and the Department of Labor’s overtime enforcement and rulemaking framework.
No committee debate or vote record is provided, so there is no formal legislative sentiment to measure from the available history. The bill’s title, sponsors, and text indicate a pro-worker, pro-overtime stance aimed at expanding eligibility for overtime compensation. The overall tone of the measure is supportive of wage protections, with the likely policy divide falling along labor-versus-business lines.
The main points of contention are likely the proposed salary thresholds, the automatic indexing formula, and the tighter duties test. Supporters would view these provisions as necessary to prevent employers from classifying too many workers as exempt and to keep the threshold current with wage growth. Opponents, likely including employer and business interests, would probably argue that the thresholds are too high, that automatic updates reduce legislative oversight, and that the duties change could make it harder to use salaried management structures.