C.F.R. » Title 29 » CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER A—REGULATIONS › PART 553—APPLICATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT TO EMPLOYEES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS › Subpart C—Fire Protection and Law Enforcement Employees of Public Agencies

29 C.F.R. § 553.224

“Work period” defined

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

(a) As used in section 7(k), the term “work period” refers to any established and regularly recurring period of work which, under the terms of the Act and legislative history, cannot be less than 7 consecutive days nor more than 28 consecutive days. Except for this limitation, the work period can be of any length, and it need not coincide with the duty cycle or pay period or with a particular day of the week or hour of the day. Once the beginning and ending time of an employee's work period is established, however, it remains fixed regardless of how many hours are worked within the period. The beginning and ending of the work period may be changed, provided that the change is intended to be permanent and is not designed to evade the overtime compensation requirements of the Act.

(b) An employer may have one work period applicable to all employees, or different work periods for different employees or groups of employees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Danny Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Danny Flores v. City of San Gabriel, 824 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “1994); 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 ). “Whether an employer meets this burden is normally a question of fact.”
Singer v. City of Waco, Texas, 324 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 (observing that a work period established under § 207(k) “need not coincide with the duty cycle or pay period”); Franklin v.”
O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Cf 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 (b) (employer may have different work periods applicable to different employees).”
John F. Rogers v. The City of Troy, New York David M. Grandeau, in His Off. Capacity as City Manager of the City of Troy, New York, 148 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 ; see also id. § 778.”
Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 2× “" 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 (a). A 207(k) work period "need not coincide with the duty cycle or pay period or with a particular day of the week or hour of the day.”
McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, 864 F. Supp. 466 (E.D. Pa. 1994). · cites it 2× “The beginning and ending of the work period may be changed, provided that the change is intended to be permanent and is not designed to evade the overtime compensation requirements of the Act.”
Lonnie Brock, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. City of Cincinnati John Shirey, City Manager, Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees, 236 F.3d 793 (6th Cir. 2001). “” 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 (a). In permitting the City to pay straight-time compensation for up to 42.”
Marvin E. Birdwell, Gary C. Alexander, Martha L. Harbin Mark Henderson & Jeffrey W. Wagnon v. City of Gadsden, Alabama, a Mun. Corp., 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 553.224 [emphasis added]. See also Lee, 937 F.”
City of Boston v. Commonwealth Emp. Relations Bd., 902 N.E.2d 410 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.224 (a), 553.230 (2006).”
Isaac Lee, Cross-Appellees v. Coahoma Cnty., Mississippi, Cross-Appellants, 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991). “” 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 . Both the tour of duty and the work period impact the determination of compensable hours and overtime compensation under § 7(k) of the FLSA.”
Nixon v. City of Junction City, Kan., 707 F. Supp. 473 (D. Kan. 1988). · cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 (a) (1987). The question before the court is whether the 14-day work period was established prior to the declaration dated June 11, 1987.”
Gerard Rosano v. Twp. of Teaneck, 754 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 2014). “” 29 C.F.R. § 553.224 (a). The exemption operates mainly “to soften the impact of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on public employers .”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— 29 C.F.R. § 553.224(a) — 1 case
Bennett v. City of Albuquerque, 52 F.3d 337 (10th Cir. 1995).
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.