If in any workweek an employee is covered by the Act and is not exempt from its overtime pay requirements, the employer must total all the hours worked by the employee for him in that workweek (even though two or more unrelated job assignments may have been performed), and pay overtime compensation for each hour worked in excess of the maximum hours applicable under section 7(a) of the Act. In the case of an employee employed jointly by two or more employers (see part 791 of this chapter), all hours worked by the employee for such employers during the workweek must be totaled in determining the number of hours to be compensated in accordance with section 7(a). The principles for determining what hours are hours worked within the meaning of the Act are discussed in part 785 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Jennifer Jenkins v. S. David Anton, PA, 922 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2019).
“seven consecutive 24-hour periods" that "need not coincide with the calendar week but may begin on any day and at any hour of the day." 29 C.F.R. § 778.105 . The District Court did not clearly err in finding that Employee's workweek ran Monday to Sunday.”
Pietrzycki v. Heights Tower Serv., Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 822 (E.D. Ill. 2017).
“" 29 C.F.R. § 778.103 . The term "hours worked" includes "all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work whether or not he is required to do so.”
Chessin v. Keystone Resort Mgmt., Inc., 184 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “, 29 C.F.R. § 778.103 (1998) (referring to any workweek in which “an employee is covered by the Act and is not exempt from its overtime pay requirements”).”
Nolan v. City of Chicago, 125 F. Supp. 2d 324 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.103 (directs employers to pay overtime on a weekly basis); 29 C.”
Rudy v. City of Lowell, 777 F. Supp. 2d 255 (D. Mass. 2011).
“For example, 29 C.F.R. § 778.103 directs employers to calculate overtime liability on a weekly basis.”
Abbey v. City of Jackson, 883 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. Mich. 1995).
“29 C.F.R. § 778.103 (directs employers to pay overtime due on a weekly basis); 29 C.”
Renfro v. Indiana Michigan Power Co., 233 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (W.D. Mich. 2002).
“Eggleston considered this a “special task” is notable, as is plaintiffs’ failure to connect the time spent on this special task to particular overtime (which is interesting, insofar as plaintiffs cite to 29 C.F.R. § 778.103 in support of their non-exempt “workweek” argument;…”
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.