29 C.F.R. § 541.700

Primary duty

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

(a) To qualify for exemption under this part, an employee's “primary duty” must be the performance of exempt work. The term “primary duty” means the principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs. Determination of an employee's primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character of the employee's job as a whole. Factors to consider when determining the primary duty of an employee include, but are not limited to, the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; the amount of time spent performing exempt work; the employee's relative freedom from direct supervision; and the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.

(b) The amount of time spent performing exempt work can be a useful guide in determining whether exempt work is the primary duty of an employee. Thus, employees who spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt work will generally satisfy the primary duty requirement. Time alone, however, is not the sole test, and nothing in this section requires that exempt employees spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt work. Employees who do not spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt duties may nonetheless meet the primary duty requirement if the other factors support such a conclusion.

(c) Thus, for example, assistant managers in a retail establishment who perform exempt executive work such as supervising and directing the work of other employees, ordering merchandise, managing the budget and authorizing payment of bills may have management as their primary duty even if the assistant managers spend more than 50 percent of the time performing nonexempt work such as running the cash register. However, if such assistant managers are closely supervised and earn little more than the nonexempt employees, the assistant managers generally would not satisfy the primary duty requirement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 370 cases (112 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008).
Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a) (2006); 29 C.F.R.”
Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC, 876 F.3d 191 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a); see id. § 541.202(a).”
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “3d at 548 ; see also 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a) (providing that determining an employee's "primary duty" requires analysis of "all the facts in a particular case," looking to the "principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs").”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. La. 2009). · cites it 10× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a) (post-2004). Both the old and the current regulations make clear that the determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on the totality of the circumstances.”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. La. 2008). · cites it 6× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a) (post-2004). Both the old and the current regulations make clear that the determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on the totality of the circumstances.”
Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “103 (2003) (“[P]rimary duty means the major part, or over 50 percent, of the employee’s time”), with 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a) (2007) (“ primary duty’ means the principal, main, major!,] or most important duty that the employee performs”).”
Rooney v. Town of Groton, 577 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Mass. 2008). · cites it 11× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). To be a “primary duty” it must be the “principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs.”
Gerard Morrison v. Cnty. of Fairfax, VA, 826 F.3d 758 (4th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). DOL has listed four non-exhaustive factors to consider in determining the primary duty of an employee: (1) “the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties;” (2) “the amount of time spent performing exempt work;” (3)…”
John Orton v. Johnny's Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (duties test); 29 C.F.”
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 315 F.R.D. 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). · cites it 2× “” *52 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). To determine whether an employee’s performance of management activities constitutes his primary duty, the court must consider “the character of an employee’s job as a whole,” as well as a list of factors that includes “the relationship between the…”
Gonzales v. City of Albuquerque, 849 F. Supp. 2d 1123 (D.N.M. 2011). · cites it 8× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). In evaluating an employee’s primary duty, a court must base its determination on all the facts in the case, “with the major emphasis on the character of the employee’s job as a whole.”
Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700 (a). To determine whether plaintiffs’ performance of these exempt activities constitutes their “primary duty,” a court must consider “the character of an employee’s job as a whole.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a) — 5 cases
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
Clougher v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 696 F. Supp. 2d 285 (E.D.N.Y 2010).
Rodriguez v. Adams Rest. Grp., 308 F. Supp. 3d 359 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Tortorici v. Bus-Tev, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(b) — 6 cases
Skidmore v. Natl. Bronze & Metal of Ohio, 2014 Ohio 4423 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
Harris v. Auxilium Pharm., Inc., 664 F. Supp. 2d 711 (S.D. Tex. 2009).
Ely v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 827 F. Supp. 2d 872 (E.D. Ark. 2011).
Conroy v. City of Chicago, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (N.D. Ill. 2009).
— 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(c) — 1 case
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio 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.