29 C.F.R. § 541.100
General rule for executive employees
(a) The term “employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity” in section 13(a)(1) of the Act shall mean any employee:
(1) Compensated on a salary basis pursuant to § 541.600 at a rate of not less than $684 per week (or $455 per week if employed in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands by employers other than the Federal government, or $380 per week if employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal government), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities;
(2) Whose primary duty is management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof;
(3) Who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees; and
(4) Who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees are given particular weight.
(b) The phrase “salary basis” is defined at § 541.602; “board, lodging or other facilities” is defined at § 541.606; “primary duty” is defined at § 541.700; and “customarily and regularly” is defined at § 541.701.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 402
cases (143 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2012).
Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2012). “The only disputed criterion, and the only issue on appeal, is whether the teams of employees that plaintiffs concededly supervise constitute “customarily recognized department[s] or subdivisiones]” of Baldor, 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (a)(3), defined by Department of Labor regulations…”
Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008). “1 (f) (2003), 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (a) (2006). As to the remaining Plaintiffs, the jury determined Family Dollar failed to prove they were exempt executive employees.”
Gerard Morrison v. Cnty. of Fairfax, VA, 826 F.3d 758 (4th Cir. 2016). “” 29 C.F.R. §541.100 . The administrative exemption similarly turns on a management-related primary duty: An “employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity” is one who, in addition to earning at least $455 per week and exercising discretion on significant matters, 3…”
Rooney v. Town of Groton, 577 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Mass. 2008). “2) Two changes to the FLSA regulations were made that are significant to this case: (1) 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 was amended to include a higher weekly salary requirement and a requirement that to be an exempt executive, the employee must have “the authority to hire or fire other…”
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 541.100(a). The parties agree that there is no dispute that Mr.”
Helix Energy Solutions Grp., Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39 (2023). “29 CFR §§ 541.100 , 541.601(a), (b)(1). The general rule considers employees to be execu- tives when they are “[c]ompensated on a salary basis” (salary-basis test); “at a rate of not less than $455 per week” (salary-level test); and carry out three listed…”
Howard Holt v. City of Battle Creek, 925 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2019). “29 C.F.R. § 541.100 . Only the second and fourth elements are at issue in this case.”
Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (a). In addition to revising the executive exemption in 2004, the DOL promulgated additional provisions defining the scope of the FLSA exemptions.”
John Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2012). “See 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (executive employees); 29 C.”
Evelyn Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, 833 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2016). “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (a)(4). The parties agree that the standards for executive exemption are the same under both the FLSA and the AMWA.”
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “102 , and the determination of whether an employee’s primary duty is “management of the enterprise” is a factor that the trier of fact must consider in the primary duty test under 29 C.F.R. § 541.100 . “It is particularly inappropriate for a witness to track the exact language…”
Martinez v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 930 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). “29 C.F.R. § 541.100 (a). 12 Courts analyze these criteria in terms of a “salary basis” component and a “duties” component.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a) — 10 cases
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 541.100(a). The parties agree that there is no dispute that Mr.”
Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
Lawson v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, 194 F. Supp. 3d 301 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
Paganas v. Total Maint. Solution, LLC, 220 F. Supp. 3d 247 (E.D.N.Y 2016).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(1) — 2 cases
Kim v. The Korean News of Chicago Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020).
Resurrection Bay Auto Parts, Inc. v. Alder (Alaska 2014).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(2) — 1 case
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 541.100(a). The parties agree that there is no dispute that Mr.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(3) — 3 cases
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 541.100(a). The parties agree that there is no dispute that Mr.”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. La. 2009).
Boudreaux v. Schlumberger Tech Corp (W.D. La. 2022).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(4) — 1 case
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “29 C.F.R. 541.100(a). The parties agree that there is no dispute that Mr.”
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.