29 C.F.R. § 778.7

Effect of Service Contract Act of 1965

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

The McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act of 1965, which provides for the predetermination and the specification in service contracts entered into by the Federal Government or the District of Columbia, of the minimum wages and fringe benefits to be received by employees of contractors and subcontractors employed in work on such contracts, contains the following provision:

Sec. 6. In determining any overtime pay to which such service employees are entitled under any Federal law, the regular or basic hourly rate of pay of such an employee shall not include any fringe benefit payments computed hereunder which are excluded from the regular rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act by provisions of section 7(e)* thereof. (*Subsection designation changed in text from section 7(d) to 7(e) to conform with the relettering enacted by the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1966.)

Where the fringe benefits specified in such a service contract are furnished to an employee, the above provision permits exclusion of such fringe benefits from the employee's regular rate of pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to the rules and principles set forth in subpart C of this part 778. However, the McNamara-O'Hara Act permits an employer to discharge his obligation to provide the specified fringe benefits by furnishing any equivalent combinations of bona fide fringe benefits or by making equivalent or differential payments in cash. Permissible methods of doing this are set forth in part 4 of this title, subpart B. If the employer furnishes equivalent benefits or makes cash payments, or both, to an employee as therein authorized, the amounts thereof, to the extent that they operate to discharge the employer's obligation under the McNamara-O'Hara Act to furnish such specified fringe benefits, may be excluded pursuant to such Act from the employee's regular or basic rate of pay in computing any overtime pay due the employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, pursuant to the rule provided in § 4.55 of this title. This means that such equivalent fringe benefits or cash payments which are authorized under the McNamara-O'Hara Act to be provided in lieu of the fringe benefits specified in determinations issued under such Act are excludable from the regular rate in applying the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act if the fringe benefits specified under the McNamara-O'Hara Act would be so excludable if actually furnished. This is true regardless of whether the equivalent benefits or payments themselves meet the requirements of section 7(e) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and subpart C of this part 778.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Summitt Investigative Serv., Inc. v. Herman, 34 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Summitt Investigative Serv., Inc. v. Herman, 34 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 1998). “Although neither the SCA nor governing regulations required Summitt to pay time-and-one-half the cash fringe benefit rate for overtime hours, see 29 C.F.R. § 778.7 , Summitt nonetheless compensated its employees at this rate.”

Oliverio-Still v. AVMAC LLC (S.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 2× “] 28 1 29 C.F.R. § 778.7 ; see also id. § 4.177(e).”

Loreto v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021). “27 29 C.F.R. § 778.7 . 7 The Court separately considers the adequacy of the Settlement with respect to the PAGA penalties 28 1 does not evaluate the merits of either party’s position, this dispute could also potentially 2 decrease the class recovery were Plaintiff to proceed to…”

Loreto v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2021). “24 29 C.F.R. § 778.7 . 25 3 At the hearing on Plaintiff’s initial motion for preliminary approval, the Court requested clarification regarding whether the SCA-related defense applied to all class members.”

Williams v. Enter. Resource Plan. Int'l, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2025). “29 C.F.R. § 778.7 (“If the employer furnishes 12 equivalent benefits or makes cash payments, or both, to an employee as therein 13 authorized, the amounts thereof, to the extent that they operate to discharge the 14 employer’s obligation under the McNamara-O’Hara Act to furnish…”

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.