The “regular rate” of pay under the Act cannot be left to a declaration by the parties as to what is to be treated as the regular rate for an employee; it must be drawn from what happens under the employment contract (Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Aaron, 334 U.S. 446). The Supreme Court has described it as the hourly rate actually paid the employee for the normal, nonovertime workweek for which he is employed—an “actual fact” (Walling v. Youngerman-Reynolds Hardwood Co., 325 U.S. 419). Section 7(e) of the Act requires inclusion in the “regular rate” of “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee” except payments specifically excluded by paragraphs (1) through (7) of that subsection. (These seven types of payments, which are set forth in § 778.200 and discussed in §§ 778.201 through 778.224, are hereafter referred to as “statutory exclusions.”) As stated by the Supreme Court in the Youngerman-Reynolds case cited above: “Once the parties have decided upon the amount of wages and the mode of payment the determination of the regular rate becomes a matter of mathematical computation, the result of which is unaffected by any designation of a contrary ‘regular rate’ in the wage contracts.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
69
cases (
24 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
Santillan v. Henao, 822 F. Supp. 2d 284 (E.D.N.Y 2011).
Santillan v. Henao, 822 F. Supp. 2d 284 (E.D.N.Y 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.108 . The regulation also makes clear that this regular rate “must be drawn from what happens under the employment contract.”
Landry v. Swire Oilfield Servs., L.L.C., 252 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (D.N.M. 2017).
“§ 207 (e) (“[T]he ‘regular rate’ at which an employee is employed shall be deemed to include all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” with eight statutory exceptions), 3 and the interpretive bulletins have incorporated the Supreme Court’s…”
Bobbi-Jo Smiley v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co, 839 F.3d 325 (3rd Cir. 2016).
“As the Supreme Court has explained, the regular rate “is not an arbitrary label chosen by the parties; it is an actual fact,” that “by its very nature must reflect all payments which the parties have agreed shall be received regularly during the workweek, exclusive of overtime…”
O'Brien v. Town of Agawam, 350 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2003).
“Under that provision and the relevant ease law and interpretative regulations, the regular rate cannot be stipulated by the parties; instead, the rate must be discerned from what actually happens under the governing employment contract.”
Bustillos v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 310 F.R.D. 631 (D.N.M. 2016).
“§ 207 (e) (“[T]he ‘regular rate’ at which an employee is employed shall be deemed to include all re- *646 numeration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” with eight statutory exceptions), 2 and the interpretive bulletins have incorporated the Supreme Court’s…”
John Zimmerli v. The City of Kansas City, MO, 996 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2021).
“§ 207 (a);5 see also 29 C.F.R. § 778.108 (defining the “regular rate” as “the hourly rate actually paid the employee for the normal, nonovertime workweek for which he is employed” (citing Walling v.”
Sobczak v. AWL Indus., Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 354 (E.D.N.Y 2007).
“For the same reason, defendants’ reliance on the “regular rate” definition from the statutory amendments and 29 C.F.R. § 778.108 - is unavailing. The definition of “regular rate” in the 1949 statutory amendments to the FLSA states: “[T]he ‘regular rate’ at which an employee is…”
Scott v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
· cites it 2× “, 29 C.F.R. § 778.108 . 80 . See Def. Mem. at 11.”
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.