C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 551—PAY ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT › Subpart B—Exemptions and Exclusions

5 C.F.R. § 551.203

Salary-based nonexemption

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

(a) An employee, including a supervisory employee, whose annual rate of basic pay is less than $23,660 is nonexempt, unless:

(1) The employee is subject to § 551.211 (Effect of performing different work or duties for a temporary period of time on FLSA exemption status); or

(2) The employee is subject to § 551.212 (Foreign exemption criteria); or

(3) The employee is a professional engaged in the practice of law or medicine as prescribed in paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 551.208.

(b) For the purpose of this section, “rate of basic pay” means the rate of pay fixed by law or administrative action for the position held by an employee, including any applicable locality payment under 5 CFR part 531, subpart F, special rate supplement under 5 CFR part 530, subpart C, or similar payment or supplement under other legal authority, before any deductions and exclusive of additional pay of any other kind, such as premium payments, differentials, and allowances.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1987–2005 · leading case: Amos v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 442 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amos v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 442 (Ct. Cl. 1987). · cites it 3× “The criteria are: 1. The employee’s primary duty consists of management or supervision.”
Grandits v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2005). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (a), (b) (Jan. 1,1989).”
Abundis v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 657 (Ct. Cl. 1989). · cites it 4× “The specific regulation relevant to the case at bar is 5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c). By its terms all employees classified at pay grades of GS-11 and above were to “be presumed to be exempt” from the overtime protection of the FLSA.”
Amshey v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 582 (Ct. Cl. 1992). · cites it 2× “OPM, interim amendments to 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.203 and 551.204 were published 67 and FPM Bulletin No.”
Abundis v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 506 (Ct. Cl. 1988). · cites it 2× “The specific regulation relevant to the case at bar is 5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c). By its terms all employees classified at pay grades of GS-11 and above “shall be presumed to be exempt” from the overtime protections of the FLSA.”
Ackerman v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 484 (Ct. Cl. 1990). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c) (1986) (“presumption regulation”).”
Berg v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 459 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “See 5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c) (1985) and discussion at Am.”
Muniz v. United States, 972 F.2d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c) (1985). Appellants were each notified of their change in status and afforded an opportunity to challenge the reclassifications.”
Palardy v. Horner, 711 F. Supp. 667 (D. Mass. 1989). “5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c), repealed, 53 Fed.”
Baca v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 354 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (a)(6) (1983). Under this regulatory regime, DOE maintained that Convoy Commanders, who at the time held a grade ranking of GS-9, failed to satisfy the 80-percent criterion.”
Tumminello v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 693 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (1986). The individuals in Class 2 allegedly lost their nonexempt status as a result of these invalid regulations.”
Beall v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 59 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “5 C.F.R. § 551.203 (c) (1986) (“presumption regulation”).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.203(a) — 1 case
Amos v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 442 (Ct. Cl. 1987). “The criteria are: 1. The employee’s primary duty consists of management or supervision.”
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.