29 C.F.R. § 541.704
Use of manuals
The use of manuals, guidelines or other established procedures containing or relating to highly technical, scientific, legal, financial or other similarly complex matters that can be understood or interpreted only by those with advanced or specialized knowledge or skills does not preclude exemption under section 13(a)(1) of the Act or the regulations in this part. Such manuals and procedures provide guidance in addressing difficult or novel circumstances and thus use of such reference material would not affect an employee's exempt status. The section 13(a)(1) exemptions are not available, however, for employees who simply apply well-established techniques or procedures described in manuals or other sources within closely prescribed limits to determine the correct response to an inquiry or set of circumstances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Ruggles v. WellPoint, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 320 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).
Ruggles v. WellPoint, Inc., 272 F.R.D. 320 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 541.704 . They further state that “[rjegistered nurses who are registered by the appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties requirements for the learned professional exemption.”
Julian v. Metlife, Inc., 298 F. Supp. 3d 699 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “at 17 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.704 ). This argument, however, goes to the merits of whether Plaintiffs were properly designated as exempt from the FLSA's overtime provision and has no bearing on whether LTD Claim Specialists were similarly situated-only whether that group of…”
Powell v. Am. Red Cross, 518 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2007). “29 C.F.R. § 541.704 (“The use of manuals, guidelines or other established procedures containing or relating to highly technical, scientific, legal, financial or other similarly complex matters that can be understood or interpreted only by those with advanced or specialized…”
Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 290 F.R.D. 600 (E.D. Cal. 2013). “See 29 C.F.R. § 541.704 (“The section 13(a)(1) exemptions are not available .”
Pippins v. KPMG LLP, 921 F. Supp. 2d 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “Quite the contrary: The use of manuals, guidelines or other established procedures containing or relating to highly technical, scientific, legal, financial or other similarly complex matters that can be understood or interpreted only by those with advanced or specialized…”
Whalen v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 569 F. Supp. 2d 327 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). “, 29 C.F.R. § 541.704 ; Donovan v. Burger King Corp.”
Crowe v. Examworks, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 16 (D. Mass. 2015). “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.704 . In contrast, “employees who simply apply well-established techniques or procedures described in manuals or other sources within closely prescribed limits to determine the correct response to an inquiry or set of circumstances” are not exempt.”
Ely v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 827 F. Supp. 2d 872 (E.D. Ark. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 541.704 (2004). The manual provided by Defendant does not address “highly technical, scientific, legal, financial or other similar complex matters” as contemplated by the DOL.”
Nigg v. U.S. Postal Serv., 829 F. Supp. 2d 889 (C.D. Cal. 2011). “” 29 C.F.R. 541.704. The Inspectors do not dispute that they conduct "complex criminal, civil, and administrative investigations" and that they "exercise skill and technical ability in the course of day-to-day activities.”
Sean Kennedy v. Las Vegas Sands Corp., 110 F.4th 1136 (9th Cir. 2024). “29 C.F.R. § 541.704 . The checklists and established procedures do not strip the Pilots of discretion.”
Wolfe v. Clear Title, LLC, 654 F. Supp. 2d 929 (E.D. Ark. 2009). “29 C.F.R. § 541.704 . Along with its reply brief, Clear Title submitted Patterson’s affidavit, in which he essentially re-states Clear Title’s arguments in its initial brief.”
Midkiff v. The Anthem Companies, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2025). “29 C.F.R. § 541.704 . In short, for the learned professional exemption to apply, an employer must prove an employee performed “work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment.”
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.