(a) Certain nonsupervisory white-collar employees are FLSA nonexempt (unless the employees are subject to § 551.211 (Effect of performing different work or duties for a temporary period of time on FLSA exemption status) or § 551.212 (Foreign exemption criteria)) because they do not fit any of the exemption categories. They include:
(1) Employees in equipment operating and protective occupations, and most clerical occupations;
(2) Employees performing technician work in positions properly classified below GS-9 (or the equivalent level in other white-collar pay systems) and many, but not all, of those positions properly classified at GS-9 or above (or the equivalent level in other white-collar pay systems); and
(3) Employees at any grade, or equivalent level, in occupations requiring highly specialized, technical skills and knowledge that can be acquired only through prolonged job training and experience, such as in the Air Traffic Control series, or in the Aircraft Operations series unless such employees are performing predominantly administrative functions rather than the technical work of the occupation.
(b) Nonsupervisory employees in the Federal Wage System or in other comparable wage systems are nonexempt, unless the employees are subject to § 551.211 (Effect of performing different work or duties for a temporary period of time on FLSA exemption status) or § 551.212 (Foreign exemption criteria).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Aamold v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 735 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
Aamold v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 735 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
· cites it 7× “Defendant responded with a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs are not required to perform substantial duties during their meal periods, and, even if they were, plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime compensation because sergeants (SP.”
Amshey v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 582 (Ct. Cl. 1992).
· cites it 5× “Code? (2) Are OPM’s Title 5 exemption regulations in 5 C.F.R. § 551.204 and 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 consistent with DOL’s Title 29 exemption regulations in 29 C.”
Baca v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 354 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 551.204 . The third prong, frequently referred to as the “80-percent test,” has limited applicability.”
Adams v. United States, 350 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “5 C.F.R. § 551.204 (1997). 2 The Court of Federal Claims determined that as to most of the Border Patrol positions at issue, the government had met its burden of proving the positions met the OPM’s executive-exemption standard and were thus exempt from the FLSA’s overtime-pay…”
Adams v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 303 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
· cites it 3× “n the following reasoning: (1) their entitlement to overtime pay should be assessed under DoL, rather than OPM, regulations; (2) DoL regulations require executive employees to meet the salary-basis test in order to qualify for exempt status; and (3) they do not meet the…”
Adams v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 772 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The primary duty requirement is met if the employee— (1) Has authority to select or remove, and advance in pay and promote, or make any other status changes of subordinate employees, or has authority to suggest and recommend such actions with particular consideration given to…”
Adams v. United States, 36 Fed. Cl. 91 (Fed. Cl. 1996).
· cites it 5× “4 The specific regulation at issue, the “Executive exemption criteria,” which was the subject of several revisions during the late 1980’s, is found at 5 C.F.R. § 551.204 (hereafter “section 551.”
Adams v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 57 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.204 (1997). It could not, as to certain plaintiffs.”
Berg v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 459 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“See 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.204 (executive exemption criteria), 551.”
Adams v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 616 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.204 (1997). 1 Of the three general requirements set out above-number of employees, lowest organizational unit, primary duty test-the court held that the government had established that all of the relevant positions met the primary duty test, with the exception of…”
Tumminello v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 693 (Ct. Cl. 1988).
“If the SSA plaintiffs are alleging that the AFGE decision independently gives them a claim for overtime, perhaps because of the OPM regulation defining "executive" employees, 5 C.F.R. § 551.204 (1986), that was also declared invalid, they have not made this contention known to…”
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.