(a) The term “employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity” in section 13(a)(1) of the Act also means any employee with a primary duty of teaching, tutoring, instructing or lecturing in the activity of imparting knowledge and who is employed and engaged in this activity as a teacher in an educational establishment by which the employee is employed. The term “educational establishment” is defined in § 541.204(b).
(b) Exempt teachers include, but are not limited to: Regular academic teachers; teachers of kindergarten or nursery school pupils; teachers of gifted or disabled children; teachers of skilled and semi-skilled trades and occupations; teachers engaged in automobile driving instruction; aircraft flight instructors; home economics teachers; and vocal or instrumental music instructors. Those faculty members who are engaged as teachers but also spend a considerable amount of their time in extracurricular activities such as coaching athletic teams or acting as moderators or advisors in such areas as drama, speech, debate or journalism are engaged in teaching. Such activities are a recognized part of the schools' responsibility in contributing to the educational development of the student.
(c) The possession of an elementary or secondary teacher's certificate provides a clear means of identifying the individuals contemplated as being within the scope of the exemption for teaching professionals. Teachers who possess a teaching certificate qualify for the exemption regardless of the terminology (e.g., permanent, conditional, standard, provisional, temporary, emergency, or unlimited) used by the State to refer to different kinds of certificates. However, private schools and public schools are not uniform in requiring a certificate for employment as an elementary or secondary school teacher, and a teacher's certificate is not generally necessary for employment in institutions of higher education or other educational establishments. Therefore, a teacher who is not certified may be considered for exemption, provided that such individual is employed as a teacher by the employing school or school system.
(d) The requirements of § 541.300 and Subpart G (salary requirements) of this part do not apply to the teaching professionals described in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Fernandez v. Zoni Language Centers, Inc., 858 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2017).
· cites it 9× “§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (a), because defendants are not “educational establishments,” as required for that exemption to apply, see 29 C.”
Astor v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
· cites it 11× “3 (a)(3) (pre-2004); 29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (a) (2004); 5 C.F.R. § 551.”
Freeman v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 1109 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
· cites it 12× “29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (a). Recognized fields of artistic endeavor include “music, writing, the theater, and the plastic and graphic arts.”
Volpe v. Am. Language Commc'n Ctr., Inc., 200 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (a). Plaintiff concedes that he was employed as a teacher and had the primary duty of teaching.”
Reich v. Newspapers of New England, Inc., 44 F.3d 1060 (1st Cir. 1995).
· cites it 8× “29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (f) (1975). 3 The district court rejected The Monitor’s contention that the interpretations should be declared invalid because of their age.”
Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2004).
· cites it 2× “§ 213 (a)(17); 29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (1993). Although an employee may be exempt as a programmer or system analyst under § 213(a)(17), such a finding does not preclude an employee who works with a company's computer system from being exempt under § 213(a)(1)'s administrative…”
Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 254 P.3d 237 (Cal. 2011).
“(l)(A)(3)(a); 29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (2010).) In 2003, Oracle’s Instructors sued the company in a federal class action alleging misclassification and seeking unpaid overtime compensation.”
Scott v. Aetna Servs., Inc., 210 F.R.D. 261 (D. Conn. 2002).
“2 (exempting certain "administrative" employees); 29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (exemption employees in certain "computer-related” positions).”
Wendell Tabb v. Bd of Ed Durham Pub Schs., 29 F.4th 148 (4th Cir. 2022).
“§ 213 (a)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 541.303 (b). Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Tabb did not provide a valid comparator for purposes of supporting this racial discrimination claim.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(c) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(d) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(e) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(f) — 2 cases
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(f)(1) — 1 case
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.