Ag Labor
Federal lawmakers have once again sparked debate over increasing the federal minimum wage, which has remained at $7.25 per hour since 2009. While many farmworkers are exempt from the federal minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), a potential increase could still create significant ripple effects throughout the agricultural sector.
Earlier this month, Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced the Higher Wages for American Workers Act, a bipartisan proposal that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and index future increases to inflation.
Although agricultural employers in Ohio are generally exempt from federal minimum wage requirements, the reemergence of federal wage legislation presents a timely opportunity to revisit those exemptions and clarify what minimum wage obligations may apply to farm employers under both federal and state law.
Federal Agricultural Exemptions
Under the FLSA, agricultural employers are not required to pay the federal minimum wage to certain employees if one or more of the following conditions apply:
- Small Farm Exemption: The employer did not use more than 500 man-days of agricultural labor in any calendar quarter of the previous year.
- Family Member Exemption: The employee is the parent, spouse, child, or another immediate family member of the employer.
- Hand-Harvest Laborer Exemption: The employee:
- is employed as a hand-harvest laborer,
- is paid on a piece-rate basis,
- commutes daily from their permanent residence, and
- was employed in agriculture for fewer than 13 weeks during the previous calendar year.
- Youth Hand-Harvest Exemption: The employee is:
- 16 years old or younger,
- employed as a hand-harvest laborer,
- paid on a piece-rate basis,
- working on the same farm as their parent or legal guardian, and
- receiving the same piece-rate wage as employees over age 16.
- Range Production Exemption: The employee is engaged in the range production of livestock.
Understanding the 500 Man-Days Threshold
The “man-day” exemption is intended to relieve small or family-operated farms from federal minimum wage requirements. A “man-day” is any day in which an employee performs at least one hour of agricultural labor. The total number of hours worked is irrelevant, working just one hour still constitutes a full man-day.
To determine whether an employer meets the exemption, all workers across all operations owned or managed by the same farmer must be included in the calculation. For example, if one employee works a single hour on Monday and two others work an hour each on Tuesday, the farm accumulates three man-days across those two days. The FLSA sets the threshold at 500 man-days per calendar quarter, which is roughly equal to employing seven employees for five days a week over a 13-week quarter. Importantly, all categories of labor—full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary—count toward the total.
Family Member Exemption Clarified
Agricultural employers are not required to pay the federal minimum wage to certain immediate family members engaged in agricultural labor. The Department of Labor defines "immediate family" for this purpose to include parents, spouses, children, stepchildren, stepparents, foster children, and foster parents.
However, more distant relatives, such as siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, and in-laws—do not qualify for the exemption, even if they live in the same household. These individuals must be treated as regular employees and may be subject to minimum wage and hour requirements.
State Minimum Wage Considerations
In addition to federal law, employers must comply with state wage laws. When state and federal minimum wage laws conflict, employers must follow the law that is more protective of the employee, typically, the law with the higher minimum wage.
In Ohio, the state minimum wage is higher than the federal rate, and most employers are required to pay the state minimum. However, Ohio law includes exemptions that mirror federal law and allows certain agricultural employers to pay less than the state minimum wage if they qualify under those exemptions.
This alignment between state and federal law means that many Ohio farm employers remain exempt from both wage requirements—especially small farms and family-run operations. But this is not the case in all states. For example, California and Washington require that all agricultural workers be paid the state minimum wage, regardless of whether they qualify for a federal exemption.
Who is Considered an Agricultural Employee?
Both federal and Ohio law define “agriculture” broadly to include a wide range of farming activities. The legal definition encompasses the cultivation and tillage of soil, dairying, growing and harvesting of agricultural or horticultural commodities, and the raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals, or poultry. It also includes related tasks performed by a farmer or on a farm in connection with these activities, such as preparing goods for market or transporting them to storage or distribution.
This definition divides agricultural work into two main categories:
- Primary agriculture, which includes traditional farming activities like planting, growing, and harvesting crops or raising livestock.
- Secondary agriculture, which covers work that supports or is incidental to primary agriculture—for example, servicing equipment used on the farm or applying pesticides via aircraft.
Employees engaged in either primary or secondary agricultural activities are generally classified as agricultural employees and may fall within the FLSA exemptions described above.
Agritourism and Value-Added Activities: A Different Category
Classification becomes more complicated when farm operations expand beyond traditional agriculture by engaging in agritourism or producing value-added products.
Employees who work in agritourism, such as operating a corn maze, staffing a farm store, managing event rentals, or leading educational tours, are typically not considered agricultural employees under federal or Ohio law. Because their work is commercial or recreational rather than agricultural in nature, they do not qualify for agricultural labor exemptions and are therefore entitled to full wage and hour protections, including minimum wage and overtime.
Similarly, employees involved in processing agricultural products may also fall outside the scope of the agricultural exemption, depending on the nature and extent of the processing. These workers may be treated as employees in a manufacturing or commercial enterprise and must be compensated accordingly.
Conclusion.
While federal and Ohio laws provide specific exemptions from minimum wage requirements for agricultural employers, the application of these exemptions depends on several nuanced factors—including the nature of the work performed, the size and structure of the farming operation, and the relationship between the employer and employee. As farms continue to diversify through agritourism and value-added ventures, employers must be mindful that not all workers will qualify for agricultural exemptions. Understanding the distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural labor is essential to ensuring compliance with both federal and state wage laws and avoiding potential liability. As legislative efforts to raise the federal minimum wage continue, now is an opportune time for agricultural employers to review their labor practices and clarify their wage obligations under the law.
The classification of workers as either independent contractors or employees has once again become a focal point of federal labor policy, reflecting the broader ideological shifts that accompany changes in presidential administrations. With the transition to new leadership in the White House, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued new guidance that redefines the criteria used to determine worker status. This latest interpretation marks a departure from the 2024 Democratic rule (the “2024 Rule”), instead embracing a model more consistent with prior Republican approaches. The change has significant ripple effects for employers and workers as it influences everything from wage protections to benefits eligibility and legal liability.
On May 1, 2025, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2025-1(the “2025 Bulletin”), offering updated guidance on how to assess whether a worker qualifies as an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
The 2025 Bulletin explicitly states that the WHD will no longer apply the analytical framework established by the 2024 Rule when evaluating worker classification under the FLSA. Instead, the WHD will rely on the standards set forth in Fact Sheet #13 (July 2008) and Opinion Letter FLSA2019-6 (referred to as the “2008 Guidance” and “2019 Guidance,” respectively). However, the 2025 Bulletin clarifies that the 2024 Rule remains applicable in the context of private litigation.
The History of the Independent Contractor Revolving Door
The 2025 Guidance marks the latest development in a long-running pattern of revolving labor policy, reflecting the political priorities of successive presidential administrations. The 2024 Rule had previously replaced the Trump Administration’s 2021 Rule (the “2021 Rule”), which aimed to simplify the employee-versus-independent contractor analysis under the FLSA. The 2021 Rule emphasized two “core factors” of the traditional multifactor economic realities test: (1) the nature and degree of control over the work, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. By prioritizing these elements, the Trump-era rule created a more employer-friendly framework that often favored independent contractor classification.
The 2024 Rule reinstated the “totality of the circumstances” approach to the economic realities test, treating all factors with equal weight rather than prioritizing any single one. By doing so, the WHD assessed worker classification by holistically evaluating all six factors of the test. This broader, more balanced analysis often leaned toward classifying workers as employees, particularly in cases where multiple factors pointed to economic dependence on the employer.
While the Trump Administration previously issued a rule emphasizing a two “core factors” approach to worker classification, neither the 2025 Bulletin nor the 2008 and 2019 Guidance documents it references adopt that framework explicitly. Instead, the 2025 Bulletin affirms the DOL’s departure from the Biden-era 2024 Rule and suggests that additional rulemaking may be forthcoming, signaling continued evolution in the DOL’s enforcement strategy.
DOL Enforcement v. Private Litigation
It’s essential to understand the scope of the 2025 Bulletin’s applicability. As previously discussed, the 2025 Bulletin eliminates the use of the 2024 Rule in WHD investigations and classifications, even though that rule remains effective in private litigation. The distinction between these two contexts – WHD investigations and private lawsuits – centers on who initiates the action, the underlying purpose, and the legal procedures involved.
WHD Investigation
- Initiated by: The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division
- Purpose: To enforce federal labor laws, such as the FLSA, by ensuring employers comply with minimum wage, overtime, and classification rules.
- Process: WHD investigators may conduct audits, review payroll records, and interview employees. These investigations can be random, complaint-driven, or targeted based on industry trends.
- Outcome: If violations are found, the WHD may seek back wages, penalties, or require changes in employment practices. Employers can settle disputes administratively without going to court.
Private Litigation
- Initiated by: An individual worker or group of workers
- Purpose: To seek compensation for alleged violations of labor laws, such as unpaid wages or misclassification.
- Process: The case is filed in court, and both parties engage in litigation, which may include discovery, motions, and potentially a trial.
- Outcome: A judge or jury determines liability and damages. The court may award back pay, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief.
Practical Implications
For private employment matters, employers should continue to follow the 2024 Rule, as it remains the governing standard in litigation. The 2025 Bulletin applies only in the context of WHD investigations. While future rulemaking could align the DOL’s position more closely with the 2021 Rule – potentially establishing a new nationwide standard – it is essential for employers to stay informed about ongoing developments relating to worker classification. Misclassifying a worker, even unintentionally, can lead to significant financial penalties under both federal and state laws and may jeopardize the long-term stability of your business.
(Side note: Adding to the complexity of this situation is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron doctrine and could have far-reaching implications for how the DOL approaches worker classification. However, the full impact of that ruling warrants a deeper discussion – one best served for a future blog post.)
For more information on the 2024 Rule and worker classification, check out our previous blog post here.
Tags: FLSA, Independent Contractor, Worker Classification, Employee, labor, employment, Ag Labor
Comments: 0
On April 9, 2025, Ohio enacted House Bill 106, known as the Pay Stub Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation marks a meaningful step forward in promoting wage transparency and safeguarding worker rights across the state. Prior to this law, Ohio stood out as one of the few states without a mandate for employers to issue pay stubs. With its passage, the Act now ensures employees are provided with comprehensive earnings statements, bringing Ohio in line with the practices of most other states.
What the Law Requires
Under the Pay Stub Protection Act (codified in Ohio Revised Code Section 4113.14), employers are now mandated to provide each employee with a written or electronic pay statement on every regular payday. These statements must include:
- Employee’s name and address;
- Employer’s name;
- Total gross wages earned by the employee during the pay period;
- Total net wages paid to employee for the pay period;
- An itemized list of additions to or deductions from wages paid to the employee, with explanations; and
- The date the employee was paid and the pay period covered by that payment.
For hourly employees, the following three additional items are also required:
- Total hours worked during the pay period;
- Hourly wage rate; and
- Total number of hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek.
Enforcement
While the Pay Stub Protection Act brings Ohio in line with the majority of states regarding wage transparency, it differs from some by not granting employees the right to sue or seek monetary compensation for an employer’s noncompliance. If an employee does not receive a pay stub that meets the Act’s requirements, they must first submit a written request to their employer for a compliant pay stub. The employer then has 10 days to provide the required statement.
If the employer fails to respond within that timeframe, the employee may report the violation to the Ohio Department of Commerce. Should the Department find a violation, it will issue a written notice to the employer. The employer is then required to post the notice in a conspicuous location on the premises for a period of 10 days.
Implications for Employers
Although many employers already issue pay stubs as a matter of best practice, Ohio law now makes it a legal requirement. This change presents an opportunity for employers to review their payroll systems and make any necessary updates to ensure compliance. Employers should confirm that their pay statements contain all required information and that any third-party payroll providers are also adhering to the new standards.
A Step Toward Greater Transparency
The Pay Stub Protection Act marks a meaningful step forward for worker rights in Ohio. By requiring detailed pay statements, the law equips employees with the information necessary to confirm their earnings and promotes greater transparency and fairness in the workplace.
For additional details about the Pay Stub Protection Act and its requirements, refer to the official legislative text of House Bill 106 or visit the Ohio Department of Commerce’s website.
Tags: Ohio Law, Pay Stub Protection Act, Agricultural Labor, Ag Labor, Farm Labor
Comments: 0
Spring has officially sprung, and so have a few interesting legal updates. In this edition of the Ag Law Harvest we cover aggravated vehicular assault in a farm utility vehicle, "Made in the USA" labels, the Corporate Transparency Act's legal woes, USDA's Dairy Margin Program, and the U.S House Committee on Agriculture's Agricultural Labor Working Group's final report.
Driver of Farm Utility Vehicle Cannot be Found Guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Assault.
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that a driver of a farm utility vehicle involved in a crash cannot be convicted of a felony for injuring passengers because the vehicle does not meet the definition of a “motor vehicle” under Ohio’s criminal code. Joshua Fork of Sandusky County crashed his Polaris utility vehicle while driving under the influence at a party in 2020. Two of Fork’s passengers sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Fork was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI), and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault. Fork did not contest his OVI conviction but did appeal his aggravated vehicular assault conviction to the Sixth District Court of Appeals. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
In its decision, the Court found that Ohio law has two definitions of “motor vehicle.” One definition applies strictly to traffic laws and the other applies more broadly to Ohio’s “penal laws.” The Court held that the definition of “motor vehicle” that applies to penal laws, such as aggravated vehicular assault, exempts utility vehicles. The Court concluded that because of the utility vehicle exemption and the fact that the utility vehicle’s principal purpose is for farm activities, Fork cannot be found guilty of vehicular aggravated assault. To read more on the Supreme Court’s decision, visit: https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0321/230356.asp
USDA Announces Final Rule on “Made in the USA” Labels.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced the finalization of a rule to align the voluntary “Product of USA” label claim with consumer understanding of what the claim means. The USDA's final "Product of USA" rule permits the voluntary use of the "Product of USA" or "Made in the USA" label claim on meat, poultry, and egg products. However, these labels can only be used if the products are derived from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. The rule aims to prevent misleading U.S. origin labeling, ensuring that consumers receive truthful information about the origins of their food.
Under the final rule, the "Product of USA" or "Made in the USA" label claim will remain voluntary for meat, poultry, and egg products. It will also be eligible for generic label approval, meaning it won't require pre-approval by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) before use, but establishments must maintain documentation supporting the claim. Additionally, the rule permits other voluntary U.S. origin claims on these products, provided they include a description on the package of the preparation and processing steps that occurred in the United States upon which the claim is made.
Corporate Transparency Act Loses First Federal Court Battle.
As we have previously reported (here), the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) requires certain business entities to file Beneficial Ownership Information (“BOI”) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) or face civil and criminal penalties. However, an interesting twist in the CTA saga has occurred. A federal court in Alabama issued an opinion ruling the CTA unconstitutional, concluding that the CTA exceeds the U.S. Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power, and issued an injunction against the U.S. Government from enforcing the CTA against the named plaintiffs in the case. Therefore, the named plaintiff, Isaac Winkles, and companies for which he is a beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and the approximately 65,000 members of the National Small Business Association are currently not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN. Everyone else must still comply with the CTA and the BOI reporting requirements.
FinCEN released a statement acknowledging the court’s ruling but emphasized that only the named plaintiffs are excused from reporting beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time. On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Government filed a notice of appeal of the lower court’s ruling, hoping to reverse the injunction and the court’s decision. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you informed of any updates to the CTA and BOI reporting requirements.
USDA Announces 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage Program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) announced that starting February 28, 2024, dairy producers in the United States can enroll in the 2024 Dairy Margin Coverage (“DMC”) program. Enrollment for the 2024 DMC coverage ends on April 29, 2024.
The USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) has made revisions to the DMC regulations to allow eligible dairy operations to make a one-time adjustment to their established production history. This adjustment involves combining previously established supplemental production history with DMC production history for dairy operations that participated in Supplemental Dairy Margin Coverage in previous coverage years. DMC has also been authorized through the calendar year 2024 as per the 2018 Farm Bill extension passed by Congress.
FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux encourages producers to enroll in the 2024 DMC program, citing its importance as a risk management tool. The program has proven effective, with over $1.2 billion in Dairy Margin Coverage payments issued to producers in 2023. Ducheneaux highlights the program's affordability, noting that it offers a sense of security and peace of mind to producers.
DMC is a voluntary risk management program that provides protection to dairy producers when the margin between the all-milk price and the average feed price falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer. In 2023, DMC payments were triggered in 11 months, including two months where the margin fell below the catastrophic level of $4.00 per hundredweight, marking a significant development for the program.
House Committee Releases Final Report Recommending Changes to H-2A Program.
On March 7, 2024, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture’s Agricultural Labor Working Group (“ALWG”) released its final report containing policy recommendations for U.S. agricultural labor. The report includes significant reforms to the H-2A program, many of which, as announced by the ALWG, received unanimous support from the bipartisan working group. The recommended policies encompass creating a single H-2A applicant portal, implementing H-2A wage reforms, establishing a federal heat standard for H-2A workers, and granting year-round industries such as livestock, poultry, dairy, peanuts, sugar beets, sugarcane, and forestry access to the H-2A program.
Tags: Utility Vehicles, USDA, Dairy Margin Program, H-2A, Ag Labor, Food Labeling, corporate transparency act
Comments: 0
