29 C.F.R. § 778.327

Temporary or sporadic reduction in schedule

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

(a) The problem of reduction in the workweek is somewhat different where a temporary reduction is involved. Reductions for the period of a dead or slow season follow the rules announced above. However, reduction on a more temporary or sporadic basis presents a different problem. It is obvious that as a matter of simple arithmetic an employer might adopt a series of different rates for the same work, varying inversely with the number of overtime hours worked in such a way that the employee would earn no more than his straight time rate no matter how many hours he worked. If he set the rate at $6 per hour for all workweeks in which the employee worked 40 hours or less, approximately $5.93 per hour for workweeks of 41 hours, approximately $5.86 for workweeks of 42 hours, approximately $5.45 for workweeks of 50 hours, and so on, the employee would always receive (for straight time and overtime at these “rates”) $6 an hour regardless of the number of overtime hours worked. This is an obvious bookkeeping device designed to avoid the payment of overtime compensation and is not in accord with the law. See Walling v. Green Head Bit & Supply Co., 138 F. 2d 453. The regular rate of pay of this employee for overtime purposes is, obviously, the rate he earns in the normal nonovertime week—in this case, $6 per hour.

(b) The situation is different in degree but not in principle where employees who have been at a bona fide $6 rate usually working 50 hours and taking home $330 as total straight time and overtime pay for the week are, during occasional weeks, cut back to 42 hours. If the employer raises their rate to $7.65 for such weeks so that their total compensation is $328.95 for a 42-hour week the question may properly be asked, when they return to the 50-hour week, whether the $6 rate is really their regular rate. Are they putting in 8 additional hours of work for that extra $1.05 or is their “regular” rate really now $7.65 an hour since this is what they earn in the short workweek? It seems clear that where different rates are paid from week to week for the same work and where the difference is justified by no factor other than the number of hours worked by the individual employee—the longer he works the lower the rate—the device is evasive and the rate actually paid in the shorter or nonovertime week is his regular rate for overtime purposes in all weeks.

[46 FR 7317, Jan. 23, 1981; 46 FR 33516, June 30, 1981]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: David Thompson v. Regions Sec. Servs., Inc, 67 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2023).
David Thompson v. Regions Sec. Servs., Inc, 67 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.327 (a). Without that prohibition, the FLSA would neither (1) place “financial pressure” on employers to hire addi- tional workers instead of scheduling their existing employees to work overtime, nor (2) ensure that employees receive additional compensation “for…”
Huntington Mem'l Hosp. v. Superior Court, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6813 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” ( 29 C.F.R. § 778.327 (b) (2004), italics added; see Walling v.”
Wofford v. Seba Abode, Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2024). · cites it 7× “29 C.F.R. § 778.327 . With respect to permissible rate changes, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has explained: As we’ve noted, employers like Regional Security can lawfully reduce an employee’s weekly average rate, as long as they do not do so as a…”
Walsh v. Kynd Hearts Home Healthcare, LLC (E.D. Va. 2022). · cites it 3× “) Plaintiff points out that 29 C.F.R. § 778.327 provides an example of a pay scheme identical to Defendants’ scheme that is contrary to the FLSA and reflects an attempt to avoid the overtime requirements of the FLSA: If he [employer] set the rate at $6 per hour for all workweeks…”
Dep't of Labor v. Americare Healthcare Servs., LLC (S.D. Ohio 2025). · cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 778.327 (a). The difference between a permissible reduction to an employee’s regular rate of pay, and an impermissible one, hinges on “whether the rate change is ‘justified by no factor other than the number of hours’ an employee worked.”
David Thompson v. Regions Sec. Servs., Inc. (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “(quoting 29 C.F.R. § 778.327 (b)). In other words, an employer cannot “play[] with an employee’s hours and rates to ef- fectively avoid paying time-and-a-half for an employee’s overtime hours.”
Walsh v. Kynd Hearts Home Healthcare, LLC (E.D. Va. 2022). · cites it 2× “5B, FLSA Materials (containing text of 29 C.F.R. § 778.327 ). Defendants acknowledged they read the materials.”
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “203 (premium pay for work on Saturdays, Sundays, and other “special days”); 29 CFR § 778.327 (b) (temporary or sporadic reduction in schedule); and 29 CFR § 778.”
Alvarado v. Dart Container Corp. of Cal., 25 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1730 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 2016). “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 this court with notice before oral argument of plaintiff's intent…”
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.