29 C.F.R. § 778.112
Day rates and job rates
If the employee is paid a flat sum for a day's work or for doing a particular job, without regard to the number of hours worked in the day or at the job, and if he receives no other form of compensation for services, his regular rate is determined by totaling all the sums received at such day rates or job rates in the workweek and dividing by the total hours actually worked. He is then entitled to extra half-time pay at this rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in the workweek.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72
cases (26 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Poe v. IESI MD Corp., 243 Md. App. 243 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019).
Poe v. IESI MD Corp., 243 Md. App. 243 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019). “IESI computed Poe’s overtime compensation by employing 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 , a longstanding federal regulation that dictates the method for computing overtime compensation for day-rate employees under federal law.”
Dufrene v. Browning-Ferris, Inc., 207 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2000). “§§ 201-19 (FLSA), primarily at issue is whether 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 (method for computing overtime pay for day-rate employees) is a permissible interpretation of the FLSA.”
Hartsell v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Texas, 207 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2000). “Pepper could pay overtime on that day-rate basis, pursuant to the method set by 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 , employees had to have agreed to be compensated on that, rather than an hourly, basis.”
Powell v. Carey Int'l, Inc., 514 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2007). “109 applies because Plaintiffs were paid in multiple ways, which results in time and half overtime pay, or whether 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 applies because Plaintiffs were paid by the job, which results in half overtime pay.”
Mumby v. Pure Energy Servs. (usa), Inc., 636 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2011). “Pure Energy defined its “day rate” not by the relevant regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 , but rather as a daily rate consisting of a defined regular rate for the first eight hours and an overtime rate for the remaining four hours of the day.”
Amaya v. DGS Constr., 278 A.3d 1216 (Md. 2022). “3d at 337, the Court of Special Appeals noted that Maryland had not adopted a statute or regulation equivalent to 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 , a federal regulation that instructs employers on how to - 43 - compute wages and overtime compensation for day-rate employees.”
Herman v. Hector I. Nieves Transp., Inc., 91 F. Supp. 2d 435 (D.P.R. 2000). “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 . (c) We followed this formula specified in 29 C.”
Turner v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 831 (D.S.C. 2017). “111 , day or job rate, 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 , salary, 29 C.F.R. § 778.”
Lee v. Vance Exec. Prot., Inc., 7 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2001). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 (2000). Such a calculation yields a much higher regular hourly rate than does Vance’s.”
Romero v. Clean Harbors Surface Rentals USA, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D.D.C. 2019). “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 (describing method for calculating overtime rate for day-rate workers).”
Verderame v. Radioshack Corp., 31 F. Supp. 3d 702 (E.D. Pa. 2014). “43(b) and 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 ). Although section 231.”
Foster v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 285 F.R.D. 343 (W.D. Pa. 2012). “The state regulators were well aware of the federal regulations, as evidenced by their verbatim adoption of 29 C.F.R. § 778.112 , regarding “day rate[ ]” and “job rate[]” employees.”
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.