5 C.F.R. § 551.202

General principles

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

In all exemption determinations, the agency must observe the following principles:

(a) Each employee is presumed to be FLSA nonexempt unless the employing agency correctly determines that the employee clearly meets the requirements of one or more of the exemptions of this subpart and such supplemental interpretations or instructions issued by OPM. The agency must designate an employee FLSA exempt when the agency correctly determines that the employee meets the requirements of one or more of the exemptions of this subpart and such supplemental interpretations or instructions issued by OPM.

(b) Exemption criteria must be narrowly construed to apply only to those employees who are clearly within the terms and spirit of the exemption.

(c) The burden of proof rests with the agency that asserts the exemption.

(d) An employee who clearly meets the criteria for exemption must be designated FLSA exempt. If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether an employee meets the criteria for exemption, the employee will be designated FLSA nonexempt.

(e) While established position descriptions and titles may assist in making initial FLSA exemption determinations, the designation of an employee as FLSA exempt or nonexempt must ultimately rest on the duties actually performed by the employee.

(f) Although separate criteria are provided for the exemption of executive, administrative, and professional employees, those categories are not mutually exclusive. Employees who perform a combination of exempt duties set forth in this regulation may also qualify for exemption. For example, an employee whose primary duty involves a combination of exempt administrative and exempt executive work may qualify for exemption, i.e., work that is exempt under one section of this part will not defeat the exemption under any other section.

(g) Failure to meet the criteria for exemption under what might appear to be the most obvious criteria does not preclude exemption under another category. For example, an engineering technician who fails to meet the professional exemption criteria may be performing exempt administrative work, or an administrative officer who fails to meet the administrative criteria may be performing exempt executive work.

(h) Although it is normally feasible and more convenient to identify a single exemption category, this is not always appropriate. An exemption may be based on a combination of functions, no one of which constitutes the primary duty, or the employee's primary duty may involve two categories which are intermingled and difficult to segregate. This does not preclude designating an employee FLSA exempt, provided the work as a whole clearly meets the other exemption criteria. The agency is responsible for showing and documenting that the work as a whole clearly meets one or more of the exemption criteria.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Astor v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
Astor v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 7× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (b)-(c) (same in both the pre- and post-Oct.”
Berg v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 459 (Fed. Cl. 2001). · cites it 7× “The OPM regulations provide that employees are presumed to be non-exempt, and, therefore, eligible for FLSA overtime pay, 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (a) (1998), and that exemption criteria shall be “narrowly construed to apply only to those employees who are clearly within the terms and…”
Corrigan v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl. 589 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (a). An employee is ineligible for overtime pay under the FLSA if the employing agency correctly determines that the employee “clearly meets *594 the criteria for exemption.”
Bull v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 5× “§ 204 (f), OPM is limited to “issu[ing] regulations that implement the exemptions enumerated in the FLSA statute,” see NTEU Brief at 11, which are to be “narrowly construed” consistent with the statutory presumption under FLSA that coverage exists, see 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (b)…”
Nigg v. United States Postal Serv., 555 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “See 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (a)(“Each employee is presumed to be FLSA nonexempt unless the employing agency correctly determines that the employee clearly meets one or more of the exemption criteria[.”
Terry Madden v. Lumber One Home Ctr., 745 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 3× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (e). While not binding on this court, we find the regulation instructive.”
Christofferson v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 316 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “OPM regulations provide standards to determine whether an employee qualifies for exemption as an executive employee.”
Hendricks v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, 275 F.R.D. 251 (S.D. Ohio 2011). “589, 595 (2005) (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (1)). Defendant, however, has failed to explain how the records of Plaintiffs’ prior employers are relevant to a determination of the duties performed by Plaintiffs (while employed by Defendant) or to any other consideration of exempt…”
Grandits v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 3× “*526 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (Jan. 1, 1989). OPM’s 1989 regulations further provided that any employee properly classified as a GS-4 or below shall be nonexempt (and thus eligible for FLSA overtime), while employees properly classified at the GS-5 through GS-10 level shall be exempt…”
Christofferson v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 68 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 4× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (b). 8 OPM regulations provide standards to determine whether an employee qualifies for exemption as an executive employee: “An executive employee is a supervisor or manager who manages a Federal agency or any subdivision thereof (including the lowest…”
King v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 3× “at 305 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (b)). Whether or not an employee’s duty falls under an exemption to the FLSA is a question of law, while the nature of the employee’s duties is a question of fact.”
Adams v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 1992). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (a); Attachment to FPM Letter No.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.202(b) — 1 case
Christofferson v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 316 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “OPM regulations provide standards to determine whether an employee qualifies for exemption as an executive employee.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.202(e) — 1 case
Terry Madden v. Lumber One Home Ctr., 745 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2014). “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.202 (e). While not binding on this court, we find the regulation instructive.”
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.