(a) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (referred to as “the Act” or “FLSA”), provides minimum standards for both wages and overtime entitlements, and administrative procedures by which covered worktime must be compensated. Included in the Act are provisions related to child labor, equal pay, and portal-to-portal activities. In addition, the Act exempts specified employees or groups of employees from the application of certain of its provisions and prescribes penalties for the commission of specifically prohibited acts.
(b) This part contains the regulations, criteria, and conditions set forth by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as prescribed by the Act, supplements and implements the Act, and must be read in conjunction with it.
(c) OPM's administration of the Act must comply with the terms of the Act but the law does not require OPM's regulations to mirror the Department of Labor's FLSA regulations. OPM's administration of the Act must be consistent with the Department of Labor's administration of the Act only to the extent practicable and only to the extent that this consistency is required to maintain compliance with the terms of the Act. For example, while OPM's executive, administrative, and professional exemption criteria are consistent with the Department of Labor's exemption criteria, OPM does not apply the highly compensated employee criteria in 29 CFR 541.601 to determine FLSA exemption status.
Notes of Decisions
Bull v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 212 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 551.101 (b). However, the OPM regulations must be consistent with the FLSA itself and with the standards set by the DOL for the private sector.”
Abbey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
“§ 207 (e) as it applies to FAA employees, see 5 C.F.R. § 551.101 (b), excludes bonuses and discretionary payments from “total remuneration,” 5 C.”
Abbey v. United States, 82 Fed. Cl. 722 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“According to defendant, OPM has exercised this authority “by promulgating regulations found at 5 C.F.R. § 551.101 et seq.” Def. Mot. 14.”
Adams v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 1992).
“In practical terms, the court must examine the attributes of the position descriptions before it to determine whether or not § 213(a)(1) screens plaintiffs out of FLSA overtime coverage.”
Aamold v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 735 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.101 (c). 4 OPM regulations applying the FLSA to federal employees set forth several criteria for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions.”
Moreno v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 266 (Fed. Cl. 2009).
“JSF ¶ 11; see also 5 C.F.R. § 551.101 (2000). . Mr. Micowicz testified that the State Department's narrow framing of the question to Ms.”
Abou-El-Seoud v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
· cites it 2× “15-1249C Filed: February 28, 2018 **************************************** * 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.101 (c) (General); * 551.”
Shea v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“§ 204 (f), and OPM has invoked this authority to adopt regulations located at 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.101 through 551.710. OPM’s regulations are explicit that “[e]ach employee is presumed to be FLSA nonexempt unless the employing agency correctly determines that the employee clearly…”
1 v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“1987); see also 5 C.F.R. § 551.101 (c). When OPM’s regulations are inconsistent with DOL’s, a court must “determine whether the OPM interpretation of the statute is reasonable, as well as whether any difference between OPM’s interpretation and the Labor Department standard is…”
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.