29 C.F.R. § 541.3

Scope of the section 13(a)(1) exemptions

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

(a) The section 13(a)(1) exemptions and the regulations in this part do not apply to manual laborers or other “blue collar” workers who perform work involving repetitive operations with their hands, physical skill and energy. Such nonexempt “blue collar” employees gain the skills and knowledge required for performance of their routine manual and physical work through apprenticeships and on-the-job training, not through the prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction required for exempt learned professional employees such as medical doctors, architects and archeologists. Thus, for example, non-management production-line employees and non-management employees in maintenance, construction and similar occupations such as carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, craftsmen, operating engineers, longshoremen, construction workers and laborers are entitled to minimum wage and overtime premium pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and are not exempt under the regulations in this part no matter how highly paid they might be.

(b)(1) The section 13(a)(1) exemptions and the regulations in this part also do not apply to police officers, detectives, deputy sheriffs, state troopers, highway patrol officers, investigators, inspectors, correctional officers, parole or probation officers, park rangers, fire fighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, ambulance personnel, rescue workers, hazardous materials workers and similar employees, regardless of rank or pay level, who perform work such as preventing, controlling or extinguishing fires of any type; rescuing fire, crime or accident victims; preventing or detecting crimes; conducting investigations or inspections for violations of law; performing surveillance; pursuing, restraining and apprehending suspects; detaining or supervising suspected and convicted criminals, including those on probation or parole; interviewing witnesses; interrogating and fingerprinting suspects; preparing investigative reports; or other similar work.

(2) Such employees do not qualify as exempt executive employees because their primary duty is not management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof as required under § 541.100. Thus, for example, a police officer or fire fighter whose primary duty is to investigate crimes or fight fires is not exempt under section 13(a)(1) of the Act merely because the police officer or fire fighter also directs the work of other employees in the conduct of an investigation or fighting a fire.

(3) Such employees do not qualify as exempt administrative employees because their primary duty is not the performance of work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer's customers as required under § 541.200.

(4) Such employees do not qualify as exempt professionals because their primary duty is not the performance of work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction or the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor as required under § 541.300. Although some police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and similar employees have college degrees, a specialized academic degree is not a standard prerequisite for employment in such occupations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 183 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Pignataro v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 593 F.3d 265 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Pignataro v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 593 F.3d 265 (3rd Cir. 2010). · cites it 5× “The applicable exemption from the FLSA urged here encompasses employees who are determined to be members of the “learned” professions, as defined by 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.3 and 541.301. An employee’s status as a “learned professional” is determined by his or her duties and salary.”
Gerard Morrison v. Cnty. of Fairfax, VA, 826 F.3d 758 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 7× “In response, DOL promulgated a new regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.3 , clarifying the scope of the exemptions as applied to blue collar workers and first responders.”
Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 541.3 (b)(1). The first responder regulation further provides that *108 [s]uch employees do not qualify as exempt executive employees because their primary duty is not management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or a customarily recognized…”
David Rutlin v. Prime Succession, Inc. Kerley & Starks Funeral Homes, Inc., Jointly & Severally, 220 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2000). · cites it 9× “Under the short test, Prime Succession must prove that: 1) it paid Rutlin on a salary or fee basis; 2) Rutlin’s work required “knowledge of an advance type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and…”
Anthony Martin v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., D/B/A Am. Elec. Power, 381 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “[w]ork that requires theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering, and [the employee is] employed and engaged in these activities as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer,…”
Samuel Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 809 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “For example, 29 C.F.R. § 541.3 (b)(1) provides: The section 13(a)(1) exemptions and the regulations in this part .”
Bergquist v. Fid. Info. Servs., Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2005). · cites it 15× “Plaintiff argues the DOL regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 541.3 (4)(e) (2003), provides an exemption from overtime pay for computer professionals if they are paid a salary of $250.”
Wendy Elwell, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Univ. Hospitals Home Care Servs., Defendant-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, 276 F.3d 832 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “University argued that Elwell not only possessed the qualifications and duties of a professional as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 541.3 but also was compensated for her services as a professional, in particular on a fee basis, as required by 29 C.”
Maestas v. Day & Zimmerman, LLC, 664 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2012). · cites it 5× “In an emergency, he is expected to coordinate the employees’ response rather than personally attending to the situation.”
Jacob Freeman, Bernard S. Brown, & Robert L. Garner v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 80 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “29 C.F.R. § 541.3 (e). Applying the district court’s factual findings to the above standard,'we hold that the plaintiffs’ work entails a sufficient degree of creativity to qualify them under the short test as employees whose primary duty consists of the performance of work…”
Rooney v. Town of Groton, 577 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Mass. 2008). · cites it 9× “ed to include a higher weekly salary requirement and a requirement that to be an exempt executive, the employee must have “the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change…”
Reich v. Newspapers of New England, Inc., 44 F.3d 1060 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 13× “The relevant legal guidelines for determining whether an employee is an exempt professional are described in the Secretary's regulation 29 C.F.R. § 541.3 . The relevant interpretations are set forth at 29 C.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a)(1) — 2 cases
Sec'y United v. Newspapers (1st Cir. 1995).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a)(2) — 2 cases
Gusdonovich v. Bus. Info. Co., 705 F. Supp. 262 (W.D. Pa. 1987).
Sec'y United v. Newspapers (1st Cir. 1995).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a)(3) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(b) — 1 case
Quirk v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., 895 F. Supp. 773 (D. Maryland 1995).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(b)(1) — 2 cases
Watkins v. City of Montgomery, 919 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (M.D. Ala. 2013).
Barrows v. City of Chattanooga, 944 F. Supp. 2d 596 (E.D. Tenn. 2013).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(b)(2) — 1 case
Moreau v. Harris Cnty., Texas (S.D. Tex. 2025).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(d) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(e) — 1 case
Hashop v. Rockwell Space Operations Co., 867 F. Supp. 1287 (S.D. Tex. 1994).
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.