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 B—Executive Employees

29 C.F.R. § 541.103

Department or subdivision

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

(a) The phrase “a customarily recognized department or subdivision” is intended to distinguish between a mere collection of employees assigned from time to time to a specific job or series of jobs and a unit with permanent status and function. A customarily recognized department or subdivision must have a permanent status and a continuing function. For example, a large employer's human resources department might have subdivisions for labor relations, pensions and other benefits, equal employment opportunity, and personnel management, each of which has a permanent status and function.

(b) When an enterprise has more than one establishment, the employee in charge of each establishment may be considered in charge of a recognized subdivision of the enterprise.

(c) A recognized department or subdivision need not be physically within the employer's establishment and may move from place to place. The mere fact that the employee works in more than one location does not invalidate the exemption if other factors show that the employee is actually in charge of a recognized unit with a continuing function in the organization.

(d) Continuity of the same subordinate personnel is not essential to the existence of a recognized unit with a continuing function. An otherwise exempt employee will not lose the exemption merely because the employee draws and supervises workers from a pool or supervises a team of workers drawn from other recognized units, if other factors are present that indicate that the employee is in charge of a recognized unit with a continuing function.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 200 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1965–2024 · 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 9× “700 (a) (2006); 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 (2003). Both regulations identify factors to consider when determining whether an employee’s primary duty is managerial.”
Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 (2003). “Primary duty” does not mean the most time-consuming duty; it instead connotes the “principal” or “chief’ — meaning the most important — duty performed by the employee.”
Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 (a). The regulations provide the illustrative example of “a large employer’s human resources department,” which “might have subdivisions for labor relations, pensions and other benefits, equal employment opportunity, and personnel management, each of which…”
Michael L. Schaefer v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., D/B/A Am. Elec. Power, 358 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.103 , 541.206(b). Schae-fer contends that he spends roughly eighty percent of his time dealing with the preparation of shipments and the remaining twenty percent of his time on other tasks — some of which may also relate to preparation of specific shipments —…”
Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 541.103 defines "primary duty.”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. La. 2008). · cites it 4× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 (pre-2004). The current regulations set forth four non-exclusive factors to consider: “the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; the amount of time spent performing exempt work; the employee’s relative…”
Stephen A. Ale v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 269 F.3d 680 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 541.103 states, The amount of time spent in the performance of the managerial duties is a useful guide in determining whether management is the primary duty of the employee.”
Posely v. Eckerd Corp., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (S.D. Fla. 2006). · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 541.103 . The regulations provide that in situations where the employee does not spend over 50 percent of his time in managerial duties, he might nevertheless have management as his primary duty if the other pertinent factors support such a conclusion.”
Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 846 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2012). · cites it 5× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 (a). “A customarily recognized department or subdivision must have a permanent status and a continuing function.”
In Re Fam. Dollar FLSA Litig., 637 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 541.103 (pre-2004). First, with respect to the amount of time spent performing managerial duties, Grace claims that because she spent such a large portion of her time doing nonmanagerial *515 work, this factor cannot be satisfied.”
Elizabeth F. Smith v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 202 F.3d 234 (1st Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 . Smith claims that she spent between 80 and 90% of her time doing the work of an adjustor, a position that did not include management responsibility.”
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 3× “*226 29 C.F.R. § 541.103 . Some of these factors quite clearly cut in favor of Burger King’s contention, especially those related to freedom from supervision and a comparison of wages with other employees.”
Show all 200 citing cases →
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.