AI is all the buzz in the business world, and from an employment standpoint it has the potential to reshape the P&L by changing how work gets done—and how it’s priced. But there’s a catch: AI may be revolutionizing workflows, yet in my humble opinion it will never replace real experience, wisdom, or judgment.

And therein lies the rub under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The administrative exemption hinges on whether an employee’s primary duties include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment on matters of significance. If a role that was historically exempt starts defaulting to AI for the “thinking” parts—compliance analysis, research, drafting, recommendations—an employer could face the argument that the employee is no longer exercising independent judgment at all. In other words, the system is making the call, and the employee is simply executing.

To be sure, the opposite can also happen. AI can automate routine tasks and free employees to spend more time advising, analyzing anomalies, and making higher-level decisions—work more consistent with exempt duties. But increased productivity alone doesn’t create exempt status; there must be a genuine, durable change in what the employee actually does.

Bottom line: AI may revolutionize employment law outcomes under the FLSA, but exemption determinations remain duty-based and case-specific. And because AI is built by humans and trained on human-created data, it carries human imperfections—meaning overreliance can create legal exposure that may outpace any perceived labor savings, especially if overtime liability enters the picture.