(a) In general. (1) A penalty of up to $1,409 per violation may be assessed against any person who violates section 3(m)(2)(B) of the Act.
(2) A penalty of up to $2,515 per violation may be assessed against any person who repeatedly or willfully violates section 6 (minimum wage) or section 7 (overtime) of the Act. The amount of the penalties stated in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section will be determined by applying the criteria in § 578.4.
(b) Repeated violations. An employer's violation of section 6 or section 7 of the Act shall be deemed to be “repeated” for purposes of this section:
(1) Where the employer has previously violated section 6 or section 7 of the Act, provided the employer has previously received notice, through a responsible official of the Wage and Hour Division or otherwise authoritatively, that the employer allegedly was in violation of the provisions of the Act; or
(2) Where a court or other tribunal has made a finding that an employer has previously violated section 6 or section 7 of the Act, unless an appeal therefrom which has been timely filed is pending before a court or other tribunal with jurisdiction to hear the appeal, or unless the finding has been set aside or reversed by such appellate tribunal.
(c) Willful violations. (1) An employer's violation of section 6 or section 7 of the Act shall be deemed to be “willful” for purposes of this section where the employer knew that its conduct was prohibited by the Act or showed reckless disregard for the requirements of the Act. All of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation shall be taken into account in determining whether a violation was willful.
(2) For purposes of this section, the employer's receipt of advice from a responsible official of the Wage and Hour Division to the effect that the conduct in question is not lawful, among other situations, can be sufficient to show that the employer's conduct is knowing, but is not automatically dispositive.
(3) For purposes of this section, reckless disregard of the requirements of the Act means, among other situations, that the employer should have inquired further into whether its conduct was in compliance with the Act and failed to make adequate further inquiry.
[86 FR 52986, Sept. 24, 2021, as amended at 87 FR 2335, Jan. 14, 2022; 88 FR 2217, Jan. 13, 2023; 89 FR 1816, Jan. 11, 2024; 90 FR 1861, Jan. 10, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Baystate Alt. Staffing, Inc. v. Herman, 163 F.3d 668 (1st Cir. 1998).
· cites it 11× “In reaching this *680 conclusion, the Board relied on examples set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c), 15 a regulation based on the Richland Shoe standard which defines the term “willful violation” for the purposes of § 16(e)’s civil penalty provision.”
Rhea Lana, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, 824 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The Department of Labor promulgated 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 to flesh out, among other things, what constitutes a willful violation.”
Flores v. Velocity Express, LLC, 250 F. Supp. 3d 468 (N.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(1). However, “an employer’s conduct shall be deemed to be in reckless disregard of the requirements of the Act, among other situations, if the employer should have inquired further into whether its conduct was in compliance with the Act, and failed to…”
Maria Teresa Davila v. Maria Claudia Menendez, 717 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(1). An employer knowingly violates the Act if he disregards the minimum wage laws deliberately or intentionally, McLaughlin, 486 U.”
Sullivan v. PJ United, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1139 (N.D. Ala. 2018).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(1). An employer knowingly violates the Act if he disregards the minimum wage laws deliberately or intentionally, McLaughlin , 486 U.”
Stop & Shoppe Mart, Inc. v. Mehdi, 854 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
· cites it 3× “The test for determining whether an employer's actions were willful under the Act is set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c). An employer's violation of the Act is deemed willful where the employer knew its conduct was prohibited by the Act or showed reckless disregard for the…”
Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 628 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
“Given Gristede’s failure to demonstrate that it undertook to inquire whether its conduct was in compliance with the FLSA, see 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(3), there are no genuine issues of material fact as to whether Gristede’s violations of the FLSA were willful, see 29 U.”
Yourman v. Dinkins, 865 F. Supp. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
· cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(1). Expanding on the Supreme Court’s definition, the regulations provide that an employer’s conduct shall be deemed knowing, among other situations, if the employer received advice from a responsible official of the Wage and Hour Division to the effect…”
Radtke v. Caschetta, 254 F. Supp. 3d 163 (D.D.C. 2017).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(1). Thus, if a plaintiff claims that she was denied overtime wages under the FLSA, she must show that the FLSA violation was willful in order to recover for time outside the general two year statute of limitations period.”
Clouse v. Lewis & Clark Cnty., 2008 MT 271 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (2006). The County contends that it did not commit repeated violations, as contemplated by § 39-3-207(3), MCA, between July 1, 2001 and February 14, 2004, because (1) no court ever had ordered that its payment of wages had been improper, and (2) the County had…”
Roces v. Reno Hous. Auth., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (D. Nev. 2018).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(3). The mere nature of the program and governing Agreement is not enough.”
De Leon-Granados v. Eller & Sons Trees, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 578.3 (c)(3). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that Defendant’s acts or omissions were “willful,” as contemplated by the FLSA.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 578.3(c) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 578.3(c)(2) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 578.3(c)(3) — 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.