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
(a) To qualify as an exempt executive under § 541.100, the employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees. The phrase “two or more other employees” means two full-time employees or their equivalent. One full-time and two half-time employees, for example, are equivalent to two full-time employees. Four half-time employees are also equivalent.
(b) The supervision can be distributed among two, three or more employees, but each such employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other full-time employees or the equivalent. Thus, for example, a department with five full-time nonexempt workers may have up to two exempt supervisors if each such supervisor customarily and regularly directs the work of two of those workers.
(c) An employee who merely assists the manager of a particular department and supervises two or more employees only in the actual manager's absence does not meet this requirement.
(d) Hours worked by an employee cannot be credited more than once for different executives. Thus, a shared responsibility for the supervision of the same two employees in the same department does not satisfy this requirement. However, a full-time employee who works four hours for one supervisor and four hours for a different supervisor, for example, can be credited as a half-time employee for both supervisors.
Notes of Decisions
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. La. 2009).
· cites it 4× “Determining whether someone directs the work of at least two employees is more complicated than just counting heads. An individual qualifies as an executive only if she customarily and regularly supervises the work of two or more “full-time employees or their equivalent.”
Scherer v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 340 F. Supp. 2d 942 (W.D. Wis. 2004).
· cites it 10× “” In defining this term, 29 C.F.R. § 541.104 (a) provides that “[t]he phrase ‘a customarily recognized department or subdivision’ is intended to distinguish between a mere collection of men assigned from time to time to a specific job or series of jobs and a unit with permanent…”
Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs., L.L.C., 846 F. Supp. 2d 678 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
· cites it 3× “; see 29 C.F.R. § 541.104 (b). The DOL elaborates that the Executive Exemption may apply when the supervision is “distributed among two, three or more employees, but each such employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other full-time employees or the…”
Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2004).
· cites it 2× “*37 For instance, 29 C.F.R. § 541.104 defines "a customarily recognized department or subdivision.”
Jesse Sutton v. Engineered Sys., Inc., a Corp., 598 F.2d 1134 (8th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 7× “29 C.F.R. § 541.104 specifically addresses the problem of defining a recognized department or subdivision, and both appellant and appellee rely on these regulations to support their positions.”
Waggoner v. U.S. Bancorp, 110 F. Supp. 3d 759 (N.D. Ohio 2015).
“(Reply at 1365 [citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.104 (a-b) ].) Until such time as the record is fully developed through discovery, any ruling on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and defendant’s defense would be premature.”
Julio Barreto v. Davie Marketplace, LLC, 331 F. App'x 672 (11th Cir. 2009).
“29 C.F.R. § 541.104 (a). As to equivalency, “[o]ne full-time and two half-time employees, for example, are equivalent to two full-time employees.”
Mies v. Sephora U.S.A., Inc. CA1/1, 24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“) 9 These regulations discuss the importance of managing two or more subordinates ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.104 (2014)); what it means for an employee’s hiring or firing recommendation to be given particular weight ( 29 C.”
Baca v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 354 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
· cites it 3× “In support of its theory, defendant cites 29 C.F.R. § 541.104 (1993), a DOL regulation, for two propositions.”
Haines v. S. Retailers, Inc., 939 F. Supp. 441 (E.D. Va. 1996).
· cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 541.104 defines the term “recognized subdivision” as used in the § 541.”
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.