Since there is no absolute limitation in the Act (apart from the child labor provisions and regulations thereunder) on the number of hours that an employee may work in any workweek, he may work as many hours a week as he and his employer see fit, so long as the required overtime compensation is paid him for hours worked in excess of the maximum workweek prescribed by section 7(a). The Act does not generally require, however, that an employee be paid overtime compensation for hours in excess of eight per day, or for work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or regular days of rest. If no more than the maximum number of hours prescribed in the Act are actually worked in the workweek, overtime compensation pursuant to section 7(a) need not be paid. Nothing in the Act, however, will relieve an employer of any obligation he may have assumed by contract or of any obligation imposed by other Federal or State law to limit overtime hours of work or to pay premium rates for work in excess of a daily standard or for work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or other periods outside of or in excess of the normal or regular workweek or workday. (The effect of making such payments is discussed in §§ 778.201 through 778.207 and 778.219.)
[46 FR 7309, Jan. 23, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Landry v. Swire Oilfield Servs., L.L.C., 252 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (D.N.M. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . The statute states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees .”
Bustillos v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 310 F.R.D. 631 (D.N.M. 2016).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . The statute states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees .”
Corman v. JWS of N.M., Inc., 356 F. Supp. 3d 1148 (D.N.M. 2018).
· cites it 4× “" 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . The statute states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees .”
Olivas v. C & S Oilfield Servs., LLC, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (D.N.M. 2018).
· cites it 4× “" 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . The statute states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees .”
Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2011).
“” Similarly, 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 states that “[i]f no more than the maximum number of hours prescribed in the Act are actually worked in the workweek, overtime compensation pursuant to section 7(a) need not be paid.”
Rodriguez v. City of Albuquerque, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D.N.M. 2009).
· cites it 5× “29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . The statute states: Except as otherwise provided in this section, no employer shall employ any of his employees .”
City of Sacramento v. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3404 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
“” 8 ( 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 .) FLSA Does Not Preempt PERS’s Interpretation As a threshold matter, we reject the trial court’s ruling that FLSA’s designation of the hours in excess of 182 within the 24-day work period as “overtime” hours for which a premium must be paid preempts…”
Fernandez, Esther v. CenterPlate NBSE, 441 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
“Fernandez argues that a Department of Labor regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 , "brought unpaid overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of a daily rate .”
Reich v. Waldbaum, Inc., 833 F. Supp. 1037 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . In some, if not all cases, Waldbaum pays double time for Sunday work.”
Idowu v. Nesbitt, 338 P.3d 1078 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
“"); of 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 (2013) ("If no more than the maximum number of hours prescribed in the Act are actually worked in the workweek, overtime com *1087 pensation pursuant to section 7(a) need not be paid.”
William Brian Taylor v. The Del-Nat Tire Corp. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.102 . In other words, the determinative factor is the cumulative number of hours worked in a workweek, not the number of hours worked in any given day, nor the day when the work occurs.”
Armstrong v. Barr (N.D. Ala. 2020).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.102 ; see also Chavez v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.”
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.