29 C.F.R. § 778.104
Each workweek stands alone
The Act takes a single workweek as its standard and does not permit averaging of hours over 2 or more weeks. Thus, if an employee works 30 hours one week and 50 hours the next, he must receive overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked beyond the applicable maximum in the second week, even though the average number of hours worked in the 2 weeks is 40. This is true regardless of whether the employee works on a standard or swing-shift schedule and regardless of whether he is paid on a daily, weekly, biweekly, monthly or other basis. The rule is also applicable to pieceworkers and employees paid on a commission basis. It is therefore necessary to determine the hours worked and the compensation earned by pieceworkers and commission employees on a weekly basis.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Lupien v. City of Marlborough, 387 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2004).
Lupien v. City of Marlborough, 387 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2004). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 (“The [FLSA] takes a single workweek as its standard and does not permit averaging of hours over 2 or more weeks.”
City of Oakland v. Hassey, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 207 (a)(1)), and that for this purpose, each workweek stands alone ( 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 (2007)). In other words, an employee who works 30 hours during one week but 50 hours the next must be paid overtime compensation for the overtime hours worked during the second week, even…”
Johnson v. Wave Comm GR LLC, 4 F. Supp. 3d 423 (N.D.N.Y. 2014). “29 C.F.R. § 778.104 ; (each workweek stands alone); see also Owopetu I, 2011 WL 883703 , at *9 (citing Viciedo v.”
Beauperthuy v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “29 C.F.R. § 778.104 . Thus, “it is ... necessary to determine the hours worked and the compensation earned by .”
Ronald L. Howard, Scott R. Kincaid, Donald M. Loftus v. City of Springfield, Illinois, 274 F.3d 1141 (7th Cir. 2001). “For instance, 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 provides that an employer may not average the number of hours worked over two weeks in order to avoid paying overtime.”
Alexis M. Herman, Sec'y of Labor, United States Dep't of Labor v. Fabri-Centers of Am., Inc., 308 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2002). “103 (directing employers to pay overtime due on a weekly basis); 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 *590 (stating that an employer cannot average the number of hours worked over two weeks in order to avoid paying overtime); 29 C.”
Giguere v. Port Resources Inc., 927 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2019). “" 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 . From this we conclude that the workweek the employer has chosen is the workweek the employer has chosen.”
Carmack v. Park Cities Healthcare, LLC, 321 F. Supp. 3d 689 (N.D. Tex. 2018). “Pittman , 2013 WL 12139092 , at *6 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 ; Owopetu v. Nationwide CATV Auditing Servs.”
Chin v. Tile Shop, LLC, 57 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D. Minnesota 2014). “Plaintiff relies on 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 , which states that the FLSA “takes a single workweek as its standard and does not permit averaging of hours over 2 or more weeks.”
Takacs v. AG Edwards & Sons, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2006). “*1114 Plaintiffs also cite to 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 , whose title is “Each workweek stands alone.”
Sec'y of Labor v. Daylight Dairy Prods., Inc., 779 F.2d 784 (1st Cir. 1985). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 . In this case, moreover, the district court determined that no manager in the category at issue met the 80-hour requirement more than 76 percent of the time.”
City of Sacramento v. Pub. Employees Ret. Sys., 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3404 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “( 29 C.F.R. § 778.104 .) Firefighters and law enforcement personnel, however, are allowed to balance their hours of work over the entire work period.”
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.