29 C.F.R. § 778.203

Premium pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, and other “special days”

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Under section 7(e)(6) and 7(h) of the Act, extra compensation provided by a Premium rate of at least time and one-half which is paid for work on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest or on the sixth or seventh day of the workweek (hereinafter referred to as “special days”) may be treated as an overtime premium for the purposes of the Act. If the premium rate is less than time and one-half, the extra compensation provided by such rate must be included in determining the employee's regular rate of pay and cannot be credited toward statutory overtime due, unless it qualifies as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(5).

(a) “Special days” rate must be at least time and one-half to qualify as overtime premium: The premium rate must be at least “one and one-half times the rate established in good faith for like work performed in nonovertime hours on other days.” Where an employee is hired on the basis of a salary for a fixed workweek or at a single hourly rate of pay, the rate paid for work on “special days” must be at least time and one-half his regular hourly rate in order to qualify under section 7(e)(6). If the employee is a pieceworker or if he works at more than one job for which different hourly or piece rates have been established and these are bona fide rates applicable to the work when performed during nonovertime hours, the extra compensation provided by a premium rate of at least one and one-half times either (1) the bona fide rate applicable to the type of job the employee performs on the “special days”, or (2) the average hourly earnings in the week in question, will qualify as an overtime premium under this section. (For a fuller discussion of computation on the average rate, see § 778.111; on the rate applicable to the job, see §§ 778.415 through 778.421; on the “established” rate, see § 778.400.)

(b) Bona fide base rate required. The statute authorizes such premiums paid for work on “special days” to be treated as overtime premiums only if they are actually based on a “rate established in good faith for like work performed in nonovertime hours on other days.” This phrase is used for the purpose of distinguishing the bona fide employment standards contemplated by section 7(e)(6) from fictitious schemes and artificial or evasive devices as discussed in Subpart F of this part. Clearly, a rate which yields the employee less than time and one-half the minimum rate prescribed by the Act would not be a rate established in good faith.

(c) Work on the specified “special days”: To qualify as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(6), the extra compensation must be paid for work on the specified days. The term “holiday” is read in its ordinary usage to refer to those days customarily observed in the community in celebration of some historical or religious occasion. A day of rest arbitrarily granted to employees because of lack of work is not a “holiday” within the meaning of this section, nor is it a “regular day of rest.” The term “regular day of rest” means a day on which the employee in accordance with his regular prearranged schedule is not expected to report for work. In some instances the “regular day of rest” occurs on the same day or days each week for a particular employee; in other cases, pursuant to a swing shift schedule, the schedule day of rest rotates in a definite pattern, such as 6 days work followed by 2 days of rest. In either case the extra compensation provided by a premium rate for work on such scheduled days of rest (if such rate is at least one and one-half times the bona fide rate established for like work during nonovertime hours on other days) may be treated as an overtime premium and thus need not be included in computing the employee's regular rate of pay and may be credited toward overtime payments due under the Act.

(d) Payment of premiums for work performed on the “special day”: To qualify as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(6), the premium must be paid because work is performed on the days specified and not for some other reason which would not qualify the premium as an overtime premium under sections 7(e)(5), (6), or (7) of the Act. (For examples distinguishing pay for work on a holiday from idle holiday pay, see § 778.219.) Thus a premium rate paid to an employee only when he received less than 24 hours' notice that he is required to report for work on his regular day of rest is not a premium paid for work on one of the specified days; it is a premium imposed as a penalty upon the employer for failure to give adequate notice to compensate the employee for the inconvenience of disarranging his private life. The extra compensation is not an overtime premium. It is part of his regular rate of pay unless such extra compensation is paid the employee so as to qualify for exclusion under section 7(e)(2) of the Act in which event it need not be included in computing his regular rate of pay, as explained in § 778.222.

[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 84 FR 68771, Dec. 16, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Advanced-Tech Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
Advanced-Tech Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cnty., 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1566 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “If the premium rate is less than time and one-half, the extra compensation provided by such rate must be included in determining the employee’s regular rate of pay and cannot be credited toward statutory overtime due, unless it qualifies as an overtime premium under section…”
Swift v. AutoZone, Inc., 441 Mass. 443 (Mass. 2004). “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.203 (2004). In a Special Report of the Department of Labor and Industries Relative to Clarifying the Hours of Labor for Women and Children and Relative to Overtime Compensation for Work in Excess of Forty Hours a Week and Certain Related Matters, submitted in…”
Bell v. Iowa Turkey Growers Coop., 407 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (S.D. Iowa 2006). · cites it 2× “203 (2005) (“If the premium rate is less than time and one-half, the extra compensation provided by such rate must be included in determining the employee’s regular rate of pay and cannot be credited toward statutory overtime due, unless it qualifies as an overtime premium under…”
Nolan v. City of Chicago, 125 F. Supp. 2d 324 (N.D. Ill. 2000). “29 C.F.R. § 778.203 . Because the premium payments to Plaintiffs for work on holidays is at either two and a half or three times their normal hourly rate, these amounts are creditable against the City’s FLSA liability.”
Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 391 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2005). “§ 207 (e)(6); 29 C.F.R. § 778.203 (a) (2004). Courts have permitted an employer to credit accumulated premium pay against incurred overtime, without regard to when the premiums were paid and when the overtime work occurred.”
Delpin Aponte v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 80 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “Compare 29 C.F.R. § 778.203 (2007) (suggesting that weekend or “special days” premium pay that is not large enough to be excluded from the regular rate calculation under 29 U.”
Lutz v. Froedtert Health Inc (E.D. Wis. 2025). · cites it 4× “calculator,3 and (2) her holiday overtime challenge is contradicted by the DOL’s regulation on “special days” ( 29 C.F.R. § 778.203 (b)) and the DOL’s Field Operations Handbook.”
Lutz v. Froedtert Health Inc (E.D. Wis. 2025). · cites it 3× “) Lutz argues that the court erroneously granted summary judgment to Froedtert on this claim because it misinterpreted 29 C.F.R. § 778.203 . (ECF No. 157 at 16– 21.”
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “419, 424-425 ; 29 CFR § 778.203 (premium pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, and other “special days”); 29 CFR § 778.”
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal., 25 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1730 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2016). “502 (artificially labeling part of the regular wages a "bonus"). We do not address in this decision such untimely, waived theories and legal authority on the grounds plaintiff did not include them in its appellate opening brief or reply; plaintiff did not provide defendant or…”
Dougherty v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2020). “29 C.F.R. 778.203. The record shows that the officers were paid one-and-one-half times their salary, not their regular rate.”
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.