(a) Section 7(a) of the Act requires the payment of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate. The overtime rate, like the regular rate, is a rate per hour. Where employees are paid on some basis other than an hourly rate, the regular hourly rate is derived, as previously explained, by dividing the total compensation (except statutory exclusions) by the total hours of work for which the payment is made. To qualify as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(5), (6), or (7), the extra compensation for overtime hours must be paid pursuant to a premium rate which is likewise a rate per hour (subject to certain statutory exceptions discussed in §§ 778.400 through 778.421).
(b) To qualify under section 7(e)(5), the overtime rate must be greater than the regular rate, either a fixed amount per hour or a multiple of the nonovertime rate, such as one and one-third, one and one-half or two times that rate. To qualify under section 7(e) (6) or (7), the overtime rate may not be less than one and one-half times the bonafide rate established in good faith for like work performed during nonovertime hours. Thus, it may not be less than time and one-half but it may be more. It may be a standard multiple greater than one and one-half (for example, double time); or it may be a fixed sum of money per hour which is, as an arithmetical fact, at least one and one-half times the nonovertime rate for example, if the nonovertime rate is $5 per hour, the overtime rate may not be less than $7.50 but may be set at a higher arbitrary figure such as $8 per hour.
[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 46 FR 7314, Jan. 23, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Alexander v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 475 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
· cites it 2× “In support of their argument, plaintiffs cite 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 (a), 10 which states *480 that “[t]o qualify as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(5), (6), or (7), the extra compensation for overtime hours must be paid pursuant to a premium rate which is likewise a rate…”
Fed. Air Marshals(Fam) Fam 1 v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 585 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 (emphasis added). Any premium rates other than those described in § 207(e)(5),(6), or (7) are not overtime premiums, and “must be included in the employee’s regular rate before statutory overtime compensation is computed; no part of such premiums may be…”
Mohammadi v. Nwabuisi, 990 F. Supp. 2d 723 (W.D. Tex. 2014).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 . Thus, “where extra compensation is paid in the form of a lump sum for work performed in overtime hours, it must be included in the regular rate and may not be credited against statutory overtime compensation due.”
Acosta v. Team Envtl., LLC, 363 F. Supp. 3d 681 (2019).
“Those three enumerated exceptions each relate only to "extra compensation provided by a premium rate" (premium rate being defined in the regulations as an hourly rate that must be greater than the regular rate or one and one-half times or more of the regular rate, dependent upon…”
Alexander v. United States, 32 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“9 For example, 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 (a) (1993) states that “[t]o qualify as an overtime premium under section 7(e)(5), (6), or (7), the extra compensation for overtime hours must be paid pursuant to a premium rate which is likewise a rate per hour.”
Chris N. Acton v. City of Columbia, 436 F.3d 969 (8th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 (b). The dissent creatively “compounds” sick leave buy-back payments, which are awarded at the sub-premium rate of 75% the firefighters’ hourly wage, with 13 We note it is impossible, in the practical sense, to determine the specific days a given…”
Herman v. City of St. Petersburg, Fl, Police Dept., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (M.D. Fla. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 (b). Additionally, the FLSA provides that, although the parties can agree to different base rates for different types of work, once a rate has been agreed upon for a particular type of work, the parties cannot lawfully agree the rate will be lower simply…”
Dougherty v. City of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2020).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 778.308 (b). The record shows that the officers were paid a “premium rate” under Section 207(e)(5) because they were paid an amount in excess of the 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.