The same reasoning applies to salary covering straight time pay for a longer workweek. If an employee whose maximum hours standard is 40 hours was hired at a fixed salary of $275 for 55 hours of work, he was entitled to a statutory overtime premium for the 15 hours in excess of 40 at the rate of $2.50 per hour (half-time) in addition to his salary, and to statutory overtime pay of $7.50 per hour (time and one-half) for any hours worked in excess of 55. If the scheduled workweek is later reduced to 50 hours, with the understanding between the parties that the salary will be paid as the employee's nonovertime compensation for each workweek of 55 hours or less, his regular rate in any overtime week of 55 hours or less is determined by dividing the salary by the number of hours worked to earn it in that particular week, and additional half-time, based on that rate, is due for each hour in excess of 40. In weeks of 55 hours or more, his regular rate remains $5 per hour and he is due, in addition to his salary, extra compensation of $2.50 for each hour over 40 but not over 55 and full time and one-half, or $7.50, for each hour worked in excess of 55. If, however, the understanding of the parties is that the salary now covers a fixed workweek of 50 hours, his regular rate is $5.50 per hour in all weeks. This assumes that when an employee works less than 50 hours in a particular week, deductions are made at a rate of $5.50 per hour for the hours not worked.
[46 FR 7316, Jan. 23, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Singer v. City of Waco, Texas, 324 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 2003).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 (observing that some employees’ regular schedules include overtime hours); Aaron v.”
Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP., 427 F. Supp. 2d 327 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 . [27] This column calculates plaintiff's spread of hours damages by multiplying the days he worked in excess of 10 hours by the applicable minimum wage.”
Sharpe v. Cureton, 319 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2003).
“(citing the example from 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 , supra). Aaron found the City’s method correct: The bi-weekly salaries found in the MOAs were intended to cover 112 hours of work for each pay period.”
Mumbower v. Callicott, 526 F.2d 1183 (8th Cir. 1975).
“, supra at 106; see 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 (1974). In the instant case no explict agreement was made, stipulating a weekly wage inclusive of regular and overtime compensation for a workweek in excess of forty hours, from which the appropriate “regular” hourly rate can be derived by…”
Fulmer v. City of St. Albans, 125 F. App'x 459 (4th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 (2004).1 The majority holds, however, that the City properly paid Appellants 1 Section 778.”
Hergenreter v. City of Fort Dodge, 987 F. Supp. 1141 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
· cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 778.325 (1993). The example given in the regulations states: If an employee whose maximum hours standard is 40 hours was hired at a fixed of $275 for 55 hours of work, he was entitled to a statutory overtime premium for the 15 hours in excess of 40 at the rate of $2.”
Caltenco v. G.H. Food, Inc. (2d Cir. 2020).
“113 , nor 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 applies. Under those regulations, a wage is considered a “weekly salary” if “the employee is employed solely on a weekly salary basis.”
Caltenco v. G.H. Food Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2021).
“113 or 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 applied in this case because under those regulations, a wage is considered a “weekly salary” if “the employee is employed solely on a weekly salary basis,” independent of the hours worked in the week, unlike Plaintiff here.”
Singer v. City of Waco, Texas (5th Cir. 2003).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 778.325 (observing that some employees’ regular schedules include overtime hours); Aaron v.”
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.