29 C.F.R. § 541.203

Administrative exemption examples

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

(a) Insurance claims adjusters generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption, whether they work for an insurance company or other type of company, if their duties include activities such as interviewing insureds, witnesses and physicians; inspecting property damage; reviewing factual information to prepare damage estimates; evaluating and making recommendations regarding coverage of claims; determining liability and total value of a claim; negotiating settlements; and making recommendations regarding litigation.

(b) Employees in the financial services industry generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption if their duties include work such as collecting and analyzing information regarding the customer's income, assets, investments or debts; determining which financial products best meet the customer's needs and financial circumstances; advising the customer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different financial products; and marketing, servicing or promoting the employer's financial products. However, an employee whose primary duty is selling financial products does not qualify for the administrative exemption.

(c) An employee who leads a team of other employees assigned to complete major projects for the employer (such as purchasing, selling or closing all or part of the business, negotiating a real estate transaction or a collective bargaining agreement, or designing and implementing productivity improvements) generally meets the duties requirements for the administrative exemption, even if the employee does not have direct supervisory responsibility over the other employees on the team.

(d) An executive assistant or administrative assistant to a business owner or senior executive of a large business generally meets the duties requirements for the administrative exemption if such employee, without specific instructions or prescribed procedures, has been delegated authority regarding matters of significance.

(e) Human resources managers who formulate, interpret or implement employment policies and management consultants who study the operations of a business and propose changes in organization generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption. However, personnel clerks who “screen” applicants to obtain data regarding their minimum qualifications and fitness for employment generally do not meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption. Such personnel clerks typically will reject all applicants who do not meet minimum standards for the particular job or for employment by the company. The minimum standards are usually set by the exempt human resources manager or other company officials, and the decision to hire from the group of qualified applicants who do meet the minimum standards is similarly made by the exempt human resources manager or other company officials. Thus, when the interviewing and screening functions are performed by the human resources manager or personnel manager who makes the hiring decision or makes recommendations for hiring from the pool of qualified applicants, such duties constitute exempt work, even though routine, because this work is directly and closely related to the employee's exempt functions.

(f) Purchasing agents with authority to bind the company on significant purchases generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption even if they must consult with top management officials when making a purchase commitment for raw materials in excess of the contemplated plant needs.

(g) Ordinary inspection work generally does not meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption. Inspectors normally perform specialized work along standardized lines involving well-established techniques and procedures which may have been catalogued and described in manuals or other sources. Such inspectors rely on techniques and skills acquired by special training or experience. They have some leeway in the performance of their work but only within closely prescribed limits.

(h) Employees usually called examiners or graders, such as employees that grade lumber, generally do not meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption. Such employees usually perform work involving the comparison of products with established standards which are frequently catalogued. Often, after continued reference to the written standards, or through experience, the employee acquires sufficient knowledge so that reference to written standards is unnecessary. The substitution of the employee's memory for a manual of standards does not convert the character of the work performed to exempt work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.

(i) Comparison shopping performed by an employee of a retail store who merely reports to the buyer the prices at a competitor's store does not qualify for the administrative exemption. However, the buyer who evaluates such reports on competitor prices to set the employer's prices generally meets the duties requirements for the administrative exemption.

(j) Public sector inspectors or investigators of various types, such as fire prevention or safety, building or construction, health or sanitation, environmental or soils specialists and similar employees, generally do not meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption because their work typically does not involve work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer. Such employees also do not qualify for the administrative exemption because their work involves the use of skills and technical abilities in gathering factual information, applying known standards or prescribed procedures, determining which procedure to follow, or determining whether prescribed standards or criteria are met.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 132 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · 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 12× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (a). The Foster court determined that “the SIs’ work remains integral to the claims adjusting function, is performed in partnership with the [claims adjusters], and involves making findings that bear directly on the [claims adjusters’] decisions to pay or…”
Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC, 876 F.3d 191 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (e). Second, when applying the relevant regulatory provisions to staffing company employees, the WHD and the courts have considered the specific facts of each case and more often than not found that such employees exercise discretion and independent judgment.”
Gina McKeen-chaplin v. Provident Sav. Bank, 862 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (a), (b). Recently, in In re Farmers Ins.”
Roe-Midgett v. CC Servs., Inc., 512 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (2006). Included in that list are “insurance claims adjusters .”
Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Assn., 135 S. Ct. 1199 (2015). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 . One of the examples is "[e]mployees in the financial services industry," who, depending on the nature of their day-to-day work, "generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exception.”
Boyd v. Bank of Am. Corp., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1273 (C.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 10× “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (a). Employees in the financial services industry also generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption if them duties include work “such as collecting and analyzing information regarding the customer’s- income, assets, investments or…”
Colson v. Avnet, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 914 (D. Ariz. 2010). · cites it 4× “203(b); see also 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (a). • Preparing Quotes: According to Defendant, this specific job duty actually suggests that Plaintiff was engaged in exempt work.”
Samuel Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 809 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “*127 Further supporting the conclusion that conducting factual investigations does not constitute exempt work is 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (j), which provides that the work of “[pjublic sector inspectors or investigators of various types, such as fire prevention or safety, building or…”
Adams v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 1992). · cites it 8× “205(b); consequently, the court will look to DOL's interpretation, as set out in 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 . 9 DOL has cryptically interpreted the term nonmanual work in its regulations to mean “white-collar” work.”
Mortg. Bankers Ass'n v. Solis, 864 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D.D.C. 2012). · cites it 11× “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (b) (entitled “Administrative exemption examples”).”
Susie Bigger v. Facebook, Inc., 947 F.3d 1043 (7th Cir. 2020). “at 757 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (b). Instead, the employee “merely assisted salespeo- ple with those sales”—for example, by training salespeople and educating firms about insurance plans.”
Bollinger v. Residential Capital, LLC, 863 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (W.D. Wash. 2012). · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (b). This illustration is perfectly consistent with the rule that exempt administrative work is about running a business, not implementing its day-to-day operations.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(a) — 2 cases
Harper v. Gov't Employees Ins., 754 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
Fenton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 663 F. Supp. 2d 718 (D. Minnesota 2009).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(b) — 2 cases
Colson v. Avnet, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 2d 914 (D. Ariz. 2010). “203(b); see also 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (a). • Preparing Quotes: According to Defendant, this specific job duty actually suggests that Plaintiff was engaged in exempt work.”
Mortg. Bankers Ass'n v. Solis, 864 F. Supp. 2d 193 (D.D.C. 2012). “29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (b) (entitled “Administrative exemption examples”).”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(d) — 1 case
Benton v. Laborers' Jt. Training Fund, 210 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.D.C. 2016).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(f) — 1 case
Liu v. Dayton (D. Utah 2025).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(j) — 1 case
Samuel Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 809 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2015). “*127 Further supporting the conclusion that conducting factual investigations does not constitute exempt work is 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 (j), which provides that the work of “[pjublic sector inspectors or investigators of various types, such as fire prevention or safety, building or…”
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.