29 C.F.R. § 786.1

Enforcement policy concerning performance of nonexempt work

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

The Division has taken the position that the exemption provided by section 13(b)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, will be deemed applicable even though some nonexempt work (that is, work of a nature other than that which characterizes the exemption) is performed by the employee during the workweek, unless the amount of such nonexempt work is substantial. For enforcement purposes, the amount of nonexempt work will be considered substantial if it occupies more than 20 percent of the time worked by the employed during the workweek.

[21 FR 5056, July 7, 1956]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Casseus v. E. Bus Co., 89 N.E.3d 1184 (Mass. 2018).
Casseus v. E. Bus Co., 89 N.E.3d 1184 (Mass. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. §§ 786.1 , 786.150 (2011). This interpretation takes into account the percentage of an employee's hours that are spent on work related to the statutory provisions referenced in the overtime exemptions.”
Thibodeaux v. Exec. Jet Internaional, Inc., 328 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “In support of this finding, the court relied on 29 C.F.R. § 786.1 , a regulation issued by the Department of Labor providing that the § 13(b)(3) exemption applies even if an employee performs some nonexempt work during the workweek so long as the nonexempt work is not…”
Alec Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC, 905 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2018). “”); 29 C.F.R. § 786.1 (same); 29 C.F.R. § 786.”
Alec Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC, 869 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “ALEXANDER’S 29 C.F.R. § 786.1 ; 29 C.F.R. § 786.100 ; 29 C.”
Horkan v. Command Sec. Corp., 6 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998). “” (29 CFR 786.1.) McBurney’s affidavit recites in pertinent part that “at least 80% of our work involved undercover surveillance of British Airways’ JFK Airport terminal for the purposes of detecting and preventing criminal activity and/or investigating specific possible…”
Hartwig v. Am. Airlines Grp. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024). “29 C.F.R. § 786.1 . However, as discussed herein, the SAC 28 only alleges that Plaintiff does customer service work.”
Harper v. Sw. Airline Co. (D. Nev. 2025). “29 C.F.R. § 786.1 . 1 using intermediate appellate court decisions, decisions from other jurisdictions, statutes, treatises, 2 and restatements as guidance.”
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.