29 C.F.R. § 778.419

Hourly workers employed at two or more jobs

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

(a) Under section 7(g)(2) an employee who performs two or more different kinds of work, for which different straight time hourly rates are established, may agree with his employer in advance of the performance of the work that he will be paid during overtime hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the hourly nonovertime rate established for the type of work he is performing during such overtime hours. No additional overtime pay will be due under the act provided that the general requirements set forth in § 778.417 are met and;

(1) The hourly rate upon which the overtime rate is based in a bona fide rate;

(2) The overtime hours for which the overtime rate is paid qualify as overtime hours under section 7(e) (5), (6), or (7); and

(3) The number of overtime hours for which the overtime rate is paid equals or exceeds the number of hours worked in excess of the applicable maximum hours standard.

(b) An hourly rate will be regarded as a bona fide rate for a particular kind of work it is equal to or greater than the applicable minimum rate therefor and if it is the rate actually paid for such work when performed during nonovertime hours.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: Scott v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Scott v. City of New York, 592 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). “§ 207 (g)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 778.419 . 148 . 29 U.S.C. § 207 (g)(2).”

Townsend v. Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 862 F.2d 1009 (3rd Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “” 29 C.F.R. § 778.419 (b) (1987). This regulation cannot bear the weight which Townsend places on it.”

Mathias v. Addison Fire Prot. Dist. No. 1, 43 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Ill. 1999). · cites it 2× “§ 207 (g)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 778.419 ; Corning Glass Works v.”

Levanoff v. Dragas (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 207 (g)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 778.419 .) Here, the requirement of an agreement or understanding was satisfied.”

Pilot v. City of Yonkers (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “§ 207(g)(2); 29 C.F.R. § 778.419 . “Section 207(g)(2) is an exception to the usual overtime rules for which defendants bear the burden of proof.”

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.