C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER A—REGULATIONS › PART 541—DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE EXEMPTIONS FOR EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, COMPUTER AND OUTSIDE SALES EMPLOYEES › Subpart A—General Regulations

29 C.F.R. § 541.1

Terms used in regulations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Act means the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

Administrator means the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, United States Department of Labor. The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Administrator the functions vested in the Secretary under sections 13(a)(1) and 13(a)(17) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 367 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2024 · leading case: Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 7× “, that they customarily and regularly directed the work of two or more other employees, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (f) (2003), 29 C.F.R. § 541.”
Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 9× “Under the rules promulgated by the Secretary, three tests must be satisfied for an executive, administrative, or professional employee to be exempt: a "duties" test ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 -.2); a "salary-level" test ( 29 C.”
Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982). · cites it 9× “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 . On appeal, it repeats this argument, and also urges that the district court improperly limited the number of witnesses called at trial, and that the court’s injunction was excessive in its geographic scope.”
Jackson v. Go-Tane Servs., Inc., 56 F. App'x 267 (7th Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (f). Accordingly, the district court entered judgment against Go-Tane, in the amount of $9,960, which included both actual and liquidated damages.”
Goodrow v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 732 N.E.2d 289 (Mass. 2000). · cites it 7× “To determine whether an employee is an “executive,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 5 establishes a “long test” for employees who earn between $155 and $250 a week, and 29 C.”
Ray Marshall, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. W. Union Tel. Co., 621 F.2d 1246 (3rd Cir. 1980). · cites it 6× “Western Union appeals from this order as it pertains to high-salaried managerial employees whose eligibility for exemption can be determined under the “short test” of the final provisos of 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1 (f), 541.2(e)(2) and 541.”
Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., 518 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (f) (2002). 2 Farm Stores also asserted that it had not willfully violated the FLSA.”
William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. The Claridge Hotel & Casino, 846 F.2d 180 (3rd Cir. 1988). · cites it 5× “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 , and appeals the finding of a violation.”
Chao v. Vidtape, Inc., 66 F. App'x 261 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “Liability mth Respect to Malkit Singh Defendants assert that Malkit Singh was exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirement because he was “employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 , thereby rendering the…”
Ronald L. Aaron, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. The City of Wichita, Kansas, Defendant-Appellant/, Cross-Appellee, 54 F.3d 652 (10th Cir. 1995). · cites it 5× “, and whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department of subdivision thereof, and includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees therein.”
Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (f) (2003). This was known as the “short test” for determining whether an employee was considered an exempt executive.”
Jones v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 789 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (N.D. Iowa 2011). · cites it 12× “Primary duty, 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (a) (2003).............”
Show all 367 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(a) — 4 cases
Novak v. Apollo Printing & Thermography, Inc., 562 N.E.2d 1305 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990).
Brennan v. Parnham, 366 F. Supp. 1014 (W.D. Pa. 1973).
Davis v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., 551 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D. Del. 2008).
Bennett v. City of Albuquerque, 52 F.3d 337 (10th Cir. 1995).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(c) — 1 case
Martin, Sec v. Tango's (1st Cir. 1992).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(d) — 3 cases
Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 541.1 (f) (2003). This was known as the “short test” for determining whether an employee was considered an exempt executive.”
Madely v. RadioShack Corp., 2007 WI App 244 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
Mullins v. City of NY (2d Cir. 2011).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(e) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Reynolds, 125 F. Supp. 337 (W.D. Ark. 1954).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.1(f) — 26 cases
William E. Brock, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. The Claridge Hotel & Casino, 846 F.2d 180 (3rd Cir. 1988). “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 , and appeals the finding of a violation.”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. La. 2008).
Evans v. McClain of Georgia, Inc., 131 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1997).
Clougher v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 696 F. Supp. 2d 285 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. La. 2009).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.