29 C.F.R. § 541.202

Discretion and independent judgment

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

(a) To qualify for the administrative exemption, an employee's primary duty must include the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. The term “matters of significance” refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed.

(b) The phrase “discretion and independent judgment” must be applied in the light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises. Factors to consider when determining whether an employee exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance include, but are not limited to: whether the employee has authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices; whether the employee carries out major assignments in conducting the operations of the business; whether the employee performs work that affects business operations to a substantial degree, even if the employee's assignments are related to operation of a particular segment of the business; whether the employee has authority to commit the employer in matters that have significant financial impact; whether the employee has authority to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures without prior approval; whether the employee has authority to negotiate and bind the company on significant matters; whether the employee provides consultation or expert advice to management; whether the employee is involved in planning long- or short-term business objectives; whether the employee investigates and resolves matters of significance on behalf of management; and whether the employee represents the company in handling complaints, arbitrating disputes or resolving grievances.

(c) The exercise of discretion and independent judgment implies that the employee has authority to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision. However, employees can exercise discretion and independent judgment even if their decisions or recommendations are reviewed at a higher level. Thus, the term “discretion and independent judgment” does not require that the decisions made by an employee have a finality that goes with unlimited authority and a complete absence of review. The decisions made as a result of the exercise of discretion and independent judgment may consist of recommendations for action rather than the actual taking of action. The fact that an employee's decision may be subject to review and that upon occasion the decisions are revised or reversed after review does not mean that the employee is not exercising discretion and independent judgment. For example, the policies formulated by the credit manager of a large corporation may be subject to review by higher company officials who may approve or disapprove these policies. The management consultant who has made a study of the operations of a business and who has drawn a proposed change in organization may have the plan reviewed or revised by superiors before it is submitted to the client.

(d) An employer's volume of business may make it necessary to employ a number of employees to perform the same or similar work. The fact that many employees perform identical work or work of the same relative importance does not mean that the work of each such employee does not involve the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

(e) The exercise of discretion and independent judgment must be more than the use of skill in applying well-established techniques, procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources. See also § 541.704 regarding use of manuals. The exercise of discretion and independent judgment also does not include clerical or secretarial work, recording or tabulating data, or performing other mechanical, repetitive, recurrent or routine work. An employee who simply tabulates data is not exempt, even if labeled as a “statistician.”

(f) An employee does not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance merely because the employer will experience financial losses if the employee fails to perform the job properly. For example, a messenger who is entrusted with carrying large sums of money does not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance even though serious consequences may flow from the employee's neglect. Similarly, an employee who operates very expensive equipment does not exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance merely because improper performance of the employee's duties may cause serious financial loss to the employer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 230 cases (70 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC, 876 F.3d 191 (6th Cir. 2017).
Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC, 876 F.3d 191 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 26× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (a). Whether a particular employee exercises discretion and independent judgment must be determined “in the light of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the question arises.”
Gregory Lutz v. Huntington Bancshares, Inc., 815 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 10× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (a). An employee exercising discretion and independent judgment “has authority to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision,” although employees whose decisions are ultimately reviewable can still exercise discretion and…”
Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., 679 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “at 750 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (c)). Again, the district court turned to the DOL’s Novartis brief, which stated that the discretion exercised by the representatives in that case was insufficient to warrant the administrative exemption.”
Vasilios Zannikos v. Oil Inspections (U.S.A.), Inc, 605 F. App'x 349 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (e), Oil Inspections argues that the district court erred in concluding that the plaintiffs did not exercise independent judgment.”
Heffelfinger v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 580 F. Supp. 2d 933 (C.D. Cal. 2008). · cites it 12× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (a). “The term ‘matters of significance’ refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed.”
Combs v. Skyriver Commc'ns, Inc., 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (a), italics added.) Subpart (b) of 29 Code of Federal Regulations part 541.”
Hobbs v. EVO, 7 F.4th 241 (5th Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “29 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (a). 10 Case: 20-20213 Document: 00515954091 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 No.”
Withrow v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Serv., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 972 (S.D.W. Va 2012). · cites it 9× “29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (a). Additionally, the term “matters of significance” means “the level of importance or consequence of the work performed.”
Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 921 F. Supp. 2d 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 6× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (emphasis added). In connection with the administrative exemption, the Secretary notes that, “[T]he exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision…”
Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (C.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 7× “207 (2000); 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 (current). i. Legal Standard This test has two related parts.”
Crowe v. Examworks, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D. Mass. 2015). · cites it 7× “Accordingly, to the extent it provides some guidance, I will rely on the definition of “discretion and judgment” provided for the administrative exemption, see 29 C.F.R. § 541.202 , recognizing' that the Secretary of Labor has noted that the phrase imposes á “less stringent”…”
Anzaldua v. WHYY, Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 823 (E.D. Pa. 2016). · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 541.202 ; Baum v. Astrazeneca LP, 372 Fed.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(a) — 2 cases
Weisfeld v. PASCO, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Todd Muscat v. Minacs Grp. USA Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b) — 4 cases
Harper v. Gov't Employees Ins., 754 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
Harris v. Auxilium Pharm., Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 711 (S.D. Tex. 2009).
Andrade v. Aerotek, Inc., 700 F. Supp. 2d 738 (D. Maryland 2010).
Weisfeld v. PASCO, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(c) — 6 cases
Harper v. Gov't Employees Ins., 754 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
Andrade v. Aerotek, Inc., 700 F. Supp. 2d 738 (D. Maryland 2010).
Burns v. Blackhawk Mgmt. Corp., 494 F. Supp. 2d 427 (S.D. Miss. 2007).
Weisfeld v. PASCO, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Todd Muscat v. Minacs Grp. USA Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(e) — 4 cases
Harper v. Gov't Employees Ins., 754 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
Weisfeld v. PASCO, Inc., 2013 Ohio 1528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Cotten v. Hfs-usa, Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (M.D. Fla. 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.