29 C.F.R. § 541.200

General rule for administrative employees

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

(a) The term “employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity” in section 13(a)(1) of the Act shall mean any employee:

(1) Compensated on a salary or fee 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 the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers; and

(3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

(b) The term “salary basis” is defined at § 541.602; “fee basis” is defined at § 541.605; “board, lodging or other facilities” is defined at § 541.606; and “primary duty” is defined at § 541.700.

[69 FR 22260, Apr. 23, 2004, as amended at 81 FR 32549, May 23, 2016; 84 FR 51306, Sept. 27, 2019; 89 FR 32971, Apr. 26, 2024; 91 FR 27835, May 15, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 475 cases (171 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Gregory Lutz v. Huntington Bancshares, Inc., 815 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2016).
Gregory Lutz v. Huntington Bancshares, Inc., 815 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 13× “§ 213 (a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a), and therefore exempt from the overtime-pay provisions because their job duties related to the general business operations of the Bank, and they exercised discretion and independent judgment when performing those duties.”
Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (2006). Although the Secretary amended these regulations effective August 23, 2004 — in the middle of Darveau’s tenure at Detecon — the amendments do not significantly change the criteria for the administrative exemption in Darveau’s case.”
Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC, 876 F.3d 191 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 9× “29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a); 4 Foster, 710 F.”
In Re RBC Dain Rauscher Overtime Litig., 703 F. Supp. 2d 910 (D. Minnesota 2010). · cites it 17× “29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a). The Court therefore must examine, for all of the employees alleged to fall within the administrative exemption, their compensation, whether their primary duties are directly related to the management or general business operations of RBC or RBC’s…”
Ming-Hsiang Kao v. Joy Holiday, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 580 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 4× “" ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a)(2), (a)(3) (2017).”
Susie Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., 947 F.3d 1043 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a). Applying this regulation requires “a thorough, fact-intensive analysis of the employee’s employ- ment duties and responsibilities.”
Gina McKeen-chaplin v. Provident Sav. Bank, 862 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 213 (a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a) does not apply, 1 and the underwriters are entitled to overtime compensation.”
John Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “100 (executive employees); 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (administrative employees); 29 C.”
Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., 679 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a). In applying this regulation, 20 our evaluation of the present FLSA claim, as in all such claims, requires a thorough, fact-intensive analysis of the employee’s employment duties and responsibilities.”
Roe-Midgett v. CC Servs., Inc., 512 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “23, 2004) (codified at 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 ). The regulations replaced the short test and the longer test at section 541.”
Renfro v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 497 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “" 29 C.F.R. § 541.200 (a). [2] The current regulations, which went into effect on August 23, 2004, require employers to pay exempt employees at least $455 per week.”
Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (E.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 541.200 ; Silver v. Townstone Fin.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(2) — 1 case
Hendricks v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 677 F. Supp. 2d 544 (D. Conn. 2009).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a) — 9 cases
Weisfeld v. PASCO, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Baltimore Cnty. FOP Lodge 4 v. Baltimore Cnty., 565 F. Supp. 2d 672 (D. Maryland 2008).
Bertrand v. Child.'s Home, 489 F. Supp. 2d 516 (D. Maryland 2007).
Chicca v. St. Luke's Episcopal Health Sys., 858 F. Supp. 2d 777 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
Campanelli v. Hershey Co., 765 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2011).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(1) — 2 cases
In Re Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Scott v. The Wise Co., Inc. (W.D. Tenn. 2020).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(2) — 6 cases
Hein v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 511 F. Supp. 2d 563 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(3) — 1 case
Todd Muscat v. Minacs Grp. USA Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
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.