29 C.F.R. § 553.230

Maximum hours standards for work periods of 7 to 28 days—section 7(k)

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

(a) For those employees engaged in fire protection activities who have a work period of at least 7 but less than 28 consecutive days, no overtime compensation is required under section 7(k) until the number of hours worked exceeds the number of hours which bears the same relationship to 212 as the number of days in the work period bears to 28.

(b) For those employees engaged in law enforcement activities (including security personnel in correctional institutions) who have a work period of at least 7 but less than 28 consecutive days, no overtime compensation is required under section 7(k) until the number of hours worked exceeds the number of hours which bears the same relationship to 171 as the number of days in the work period bears to 28.

(c) The ratio of 212 hours to 28 days for employees engaged in fire protection activities is 7.57 hours per day (rounded) and the ratio of 171 hours to 28 days for employees engaged in law enforcement activities is 6.11 hours per day (rounded). Accordingly, overtime compensation (in premium pay or compensatory time) is required for all hours worked in excess of the following maximum hours standards (rounded to the nearest whole hour):

Work period (days)	Maximum hours standards
Work period (days)	Fire protection	Law enforcement
28	212	171
27	204	165
26	197	159
25	189	153
24	182	147
23	174	141
22	167	134
21	159	128
20	151	122
19	144	116
18	136	110
17	129	104
16	121	98
15	114	92
14	106	86
13	98	79
12	91	73
11	83	67
10	76	61
9	68	55
8	61	49
7	53	43

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 143 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources, 443 P.3d 924 (Cal. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stoetzl v. Dept. of Human Resources, 443 P.3d 924 (Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “§ 207 (k)(1)(B) ; 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (b) (2018) ; see Fire Protection and Law Enforcement Employees of Public Agencies; Study of Average Number of Hours Worked, 48 Fed.”

O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “; 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.230 (b), (c). The effect of the § 207(k) partial exemption is to soften the impact of the FLSA’s overtime provisions on public employers in two ways: it raises the average number of hours the employer can require law enforcement and fire protection personnel…”

Isaac Lee, Cross-Appellees v. Coahoma Cnty., Mississippi, Cross-Appellants, 937 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1991). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 553.230 . Thus a law enforcement employee receives a regular wage for the number of hours worked in a particular work period that bears the same relationship to 171 as the number of days in the work period bears to 28.”

Huff v. DeKalb Cnty., Ga., 516 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (c). Here, all Plaintiffs worked on a 28-day, 212-hour work schedule.”

Raper v. State, 688 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (b). If an employer adopts a fourteen-day work period, overtime compensation is not due until such time as the employee has worked more than eighty-six hours during the fourteen-day work period.”

McGrath v. City of Philadelphia, 864 F. Supp. 466 (E.D. Pa. 1994). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (establishing maximum standard hours for 7(k) work periods of at least 7 but not more than 28 days).”

Tina Haro v. City of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 . Thus, Plaintiffs received overtime pay only if they worked more than 204 hours in a twenty-seven-day work period.”

Collins v. City of Corpus Christi, 188 S.W.3d 415 (Tex. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (c). Plaintiffs claim they consistently work 216 hours in a 27 day period without properly receiving overtime compensation for the extra 12 hours.”

Gerard Rosano v. Twp. of Teaneck, 754 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (c) (overtime threshold of 43 hours for seven-day cycles and 55 hours for nine-day cycles).”

Jeffrey Allen v. City of Chicago, 865 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2017). “§ 207(a)(1) & (k); 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (b). The statute defines “employ” broadly, as “to suffer or permit to work.”

City of Boston v. Commonwealth Emp. Relations Bd., 902 N.E.2d 410 (Mass. 2009). · cites it 3× “See also 29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (2006). As the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has explained, “[t]he effect of the § 207(k) partial exemption is to soften the impact of the [Act’s] overtime provisions on public employers .”

Lemieux v. City of Holyoke, 740 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D. Mass. 2010). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 553.230 (a). Similarly, a municipally employed firefighter who works an established work period of eight days is only entitled to receive overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 61 during that period.”

Show all 143 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 553.230(b) — 3 cases

Brooks v. Weinberger, 730 F. Supp. 1132 (D.D.C. 1989).

Ferenzi v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2018).

Anderson v. Cnty. of Kershaw (4th Cir. 1999).

— 29 C.F.R. § 553.230(c) — 2 cases

City of Sacramento v. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3404 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).

Spillman v. City of Baton Rouge, 619 So. 2d 1164 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

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.