← All articles8 min read

Can My Employer Reduce My Pay?

A pay stub showing a changed rate

Going forward, usually yes. For work you have already done, no — never. That single distinction answers most of the question, and it is the one most often violated, because a reduction applied to a pay period that has already closed is not a pay cut at all. It is unpaid wages.

Three federal floors survive any reduction, and one of them can cost the employer more than it saves.

The line that matters most: prospective, not retroactive

Most US employment is at-will, which means the terms of continuing to work — including your rate — can generally be changed for the future. What that does not permit is reaching backwards.

Once you have performed work, the wages for that work are owed at the rate in force when you performed it. If a lower rate appears on a stub covering days you worked before you were told, that portion is not a lawful reduction and the difference is still owed.

Floor 1 — minimum wage

No reduction can take pay below the applicable minimum wage for hours actually worked. The federal figure under 29 U.S.C. § 206 is $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009. Many states and cities set a higher one, and where they do, the higher figure is the one that binds.

Floor 2 — overtime survives the cut

A lower rate produces a lower time-and-a-half rate. It does not remove the entitlement. If you were owed overtime before the reduction, you are owed it after — see how overtime pay is calculated.

Floor 3 — the salary-basis rule, which is stricter than most people expect

This is the interesting one, and it applies to salaried exempt employees. 29 CFR § 541.602(a) defines what being paid “on a salary basis” means:

“… the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.

The same section continues, and the second sentence is the one worth knowing:

“An exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked… If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.

In plain terms: a slow week is the employer’s problem, not yours. If you are available and there is simply less work, your salary cannot be trimmed to match.

The threshold that can backfire on the employer

29 CFR § 541.600(a) requires an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee to be paid on a salary basis at not less than $684 per week (with lower figures for certain US territories).

SituationConsequence
Exempt salary cut, stays above $684/weekGenerally permitted going forward
Exempt salary cut below $684/weekThe exemption can fail — and overtime becomes owed
Deductions for slow periods or partial daysAttacks the salary basis itself, per 541.602

That last column is why a poorly-executed pay cut can cost an employer more than it saves: losing the exemption converts a salaried manager into an overtime-eligible employee, retroactively.

Notice, and why the federal answer is the least useful one

Federal law says little about advance notice. Many states say a great deal — several require written notice before a rate change takes effect, some a set number of days ahead.

So the federal baseline is usually not the rule that governs your situation. Check your state labor department’s wage-notice requirements; that is where the enforceable answer normally lives.

What overrides all of this

A contract or collective bargaining agreement. At-will is the default, not a requirement, and an agreement can fix your rate for a term or require a defined process to change it. If you have one, the operative question is not what federal law permits but what your agreement says.

If it has already happened

Sources

General information, not legal advice, and not specific to any state. Every figure and quotation above was read from the cited source on 12 August 2026. Employment law varies by state and changes; if real money is at stake, talk to your state labor department or an employment lawyer.

Related

Frequently Asked Questions

Generally yes, going forward — but never for work you have already done. Federal law does not stop an employer changing your rate for future work, and most US employment is at-will, so a pay cut is usually treated as a change to the terms of continued employment. What it cannot do is reach backwards: hours you already worked must be paid at the rate that was in force when you worked them. Three federal floors still apply — the minimum wage, overtime, and for salaried exempt employees the salary-basis rule. Many states add their own requirement of advance written notice, and a contract or union agreement can remove the employer's freedom entirely.
No. A reduction can only be prospective. Once you have performed work, the wages for that work are owed at the agreed rate, and reducing them after the fact is a failure to pay wages due rather than a pay cut. This is the single clearest line in this area and it is the one most often crossed — typically as a 'correction' applied to a pay period that has already closed. If a cut appears on a stub covering days you worked before you were told about it, that portion is not a lawful reduction.
Not below the applicable minimum wage for hours actually worked. The federal floor under 29 U.S.C. 206 is $7.25 an hour, unchanged since 2009, but many states and cities set a higher one and the higher figure governs. Overtime obligations survive a pay cut too: a reduced hourly rate simply produces a reduced time-and-a-half rate, it does not remove the entitlement. If you are salaried and exempt, a separate floor applies — see the salary-basis question below.
It is the rule that stops an employer treating a salary like an hourly wage. 29 CFR 541.602(a) says an exempt employee must receive a predetermined amount each pay period 'which amount is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed,' and must receive the full salary for any week in which they perform any work, regardless of days or hours. The regulation is explicit about slow periods: 'If the employee is ready, willing and able to work, deductions may not be made for time when work is not available.' Separately, 29 CFR 541.600(a) sets the exempt salary at not less than $684 per week. Cut a salaried exempt employee below that and the exemption itself can fail — which means overtime becomes owed.
Under federal law the notice requirement is thin; under state law it frequently is not. A number of states require written notice before a rate change takes effect, and some require it a set number of days in advance. Because the rule that matters most to you is usually your state's rather than the federal one, the practical step is to check your state labor department's wage-notice requirements rather than assume the federal baseline is the whole answer. Nothing here is state-specific advice.
For an hourly employee, unpaid time off simply means unpaid hours, which is not a rate reduction. For a salaried exempt employee the picture is different and stricter: deductions for partial-day absences, or because the employer had less work available, are the specific practices 541.602 prohibits. There are enumerated exceptions in paragraph (b) of that section — full-day absences for personal reasons, certain disciplinary suspensions and others — so the rule is not absolute. Performance-based reduction of an exempt salary within a pay period runs directly into the 'quality or quantity of the work performed' language.
Then the analysis usually starts and ends there. At-will employment is the default, not a requirement, and an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement can fix your rate for a term or require a defined process to change it. If you have one, the question is not what federal law permits but what your agreement says — and an employer that cuts pay in breach of it faces a contract claim regardless of whether the reduction would otherwise have been lawful.