29 C.F.R. § 778.101
Maximum nonovertime hours
As a general standard, section 7(a) of the Act provides 40 hours as the maximum number that an employee subject to its provisions may work for an employer in any workweek without receiving additional compensation at not less than the statutory rate for overtime. Hours worked in excess of the statutory maximum in any workweek are overtime hours under the statute; a workweek no longer than the prescribed maximum is a nonovertime workweek under the Act, to which the pay requirements of section 6 (minimum wage and equal pay) but not those of section 7(a) are applicable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003).
O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.101 (“[A] workweek no longer than the prescribed maximum is a nonovertime workweek under the Act.”
Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 778.101 states that “[h]ours worked in excess of the statutory maximum in any workweek are overtime hours under the statute; a workweek no longer than the prescribed maximum is a nonovertime workweek under the Act, to which the pay requirements of section 6 (minimum…”
Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 198 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2319 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “) Exxon’s workweek meets this standard—the schedule of seven consecutive shifts worked by plaintiffs overlaps two workweeks, resulting in 48 hours being worked in one workweek and 36 hours being worked in the other workweek.”
Pac. Merch. Shipping Ass'n v. Aubry, 918 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir. 1990). “§ 207 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 778.101 ; under California law, all hours in excess of 12 per day must be paid at double time, 8 Cal.”
Visco v. Aiken Cnty., 974 F. Supp. 2d 908 (D.S.C. 2013). “at 9 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 778.101 (“Hours worked in excess of the statutory maximum in any workweek are overtime hours under the statute.”
Schmidt v. Cnty. of Prince William, 929 F.2d 986 (4th Cir. 1991). “§ 207 (a); 29 C.F.R. § 778.101 . Claiming that their employment during their respective tours of duty in the Communications Division did not qualify under the overtime exemption, several fire technicians filed a complaint seeking compensation for the unpaid over *988 time and…”
Solis v. Lorraine Enter., 907 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.P.R. 2012). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.101 ; O’Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.”
Headly v. Liberty Homecare Options, LLC (D. Conn. 2022). “29 C.F.R. §§ 778.101 , 778.107; Conn. Gen.”
Carter v. City of Philadelphia (E.D. Pa. 2022). “The Department of Labor has consistently held that individuals should be compensated for each hour worked over forty at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which the employee is actually employed.”
Barnett v. City of San Jose (N.D. Cal. 2025). “Under the FLSA, any hours 13 worked below the statutory threshold are not “overtime” for any statutorily relevant purpose, 14 notwithstanding contrary labels provided by employment contracts.”
Timothy Goins, Individually & for Others Similarly Situated v. Wolverine Fuels, LLC (D. Utah 2026). “29 C.F.R. § 778.101 states that ‘[h]ours worked in excess of the statutory maximum in any workweek are overtime hours under the statute; a workweek no longer than the prescribed maximum is a nonovertime workweek under the Act.”
Chavez v. City of Albuquerque (10th Cir. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 778.101 states that “[h]ours worked in excess of the statutory maximum in any workweek are overtime hours under the statute; a workweek no longer than the prescribed maximum is a nonovertime workweek under the Act, to which the pay requirements of section 6 (minimum…”
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.