29 C.F.R. § 780.11
Exempt and nonexempt work during the same workweek
Where an employee in the same workweek performs work which is exempt under one section of the Act and also engages in work to which the Act applies but is not exempt under some other section of the Act, he is not exempt that week, and the wage and hour requirements of the Act are applicable (see Mitchell v. Hunt, 263 F. 2d 913; Mitchell v. Maxfield, 12 WH Cases 792 (S.D. Ohio), 29 Labor Cases 69, 781; Jordan v. Stark Bros. Nurseries, 45 F. Supp. 769; McComb v. Puerto Rico Tobacco Marketing Co-op Ass'n, 80 F. Supp. 953, affirmed 181 F. 2d 697; Walling v. Peacock Corp., 58 F. Supp. 880-883). On the other hand, an employee who performs exempt activities during a workweek will not lose the exemption by virtue of the fact that he performs other activities outside the scope of the exemption if the other activities are not covered by the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: Howard Holt v. City of Battle Creek, 925 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2019).
Howard Holt v. City of Battle Creek, 925 F.3d 905 (6th Cir. 2019). “29 C.F.R. § 780.11 . The regulations applicable to the executive and administrative exemptions, in contrast, state that an employee may be subject to the exemptions even if part of that employee's time is spent performing nonexempt work.”
Hernandez v. Ray Domenico Farms, Inc., 2018 CO 15 (Colo. 2018). “See 29 C.F.R. § 780.11 (2017) ("Where an employee in the same workweek performs work which is exempt under one section of the Act and also engages in work to which the Act applies but is not exempt under some other section of the Act, he is not exempt that week, and the wage and…”
Upadhyay v. Sethi, 848 F. Supp. 2d 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “The basis of this purported “default rule” is 29 C.F.R. § 780.11 , which provides: “Where an employee in the same workweek performs work which is exempt under one section of the Act and also engages in work to which the Act applies but is not exempt under some other section of…”
Harold Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 167 F.3d 355 (7th Cir. 1999). “If a worker works on such a product more than 40 hours a week, is the overtime agricultural or nonagricultural? It is both, but since the nonagricultural component is minor and inseparable, and since the FLSA does not permit overtime pay to be prorated for a worker who does both…”
Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 141 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Ill. 1992). “29 C.F.R. § 780.11 . The determination is made on a weekly basis, with the employer having the burden of establishing that wages for any given week are exempt.”
Martinez v. Deaf Smith Cnty. Grain Processors, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 1200 (N.D. Tex. 1984). “29 CFR § 780.11 (1981). Dawn to Dusk or 9 to 5? Defendants failed to keep records of the hours worked by the individual plaintiffs as required by 29 U.”
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Edward P. Tepper D/B/A Shoenberg Farms, 297 F.2d 280 (10th Cir. 1961). “The handling of milk and cream at receiving stations is not included. Such operations as separating cream from milk, bottling milk and cream, or making'butter and cheese may be exempt when performed by a farmer or on a farm if they are not performed on milk produced by other…”
Adkins v. Mid-Am. Growers, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 642 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “1977); 29 C.F.R. § 780.11 . In this ease, Mid-American asserts that the plaintiffs were employed in “agriculture” within the meaning of 29 U.”
Everglades Harvesting & Hauling, Inc. v. Scalia (D.D.C. 2019). “See 29 C.F.R. § 780.11 . But the incorporation of the FLSA's definition of agriculture into the INA does not mean that this rigid FLSA rule should also be incorporated.”
Jackson v. Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Flowers, Greenberg & Eisman, LLP, 54 Misc. 3d 400 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2016). “) The court first found that the so-called “default rule” under the FLSA (29 CFR 780.11), which provides that if an employee in the same workweek performs both exempt and nonexempt work under the FLSA, then he is considered nonexempt, was inapplicable.”
Parker v. Perdue Farms Inc (M.D. Ga. 2022). “See 29 C.F.R. 780.11. Therefore, the question of the applicability of the exemption is not ripe for review at this stage.”
Gomez v. Epic Landscape Prods., L.C. (D. Kan. 2025). “46 29 C.F.R. § 780.11 . 47 29 C.F.R. § 784.116 .”
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.