(a) An executive employee is an employee whose primary duty is management (as defined in § 551.104) of a Federal agency or any subdivision thereof (including the lowest recognized organizational unit with a continuing function) and who:
(1) Customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees. However, an employee who merely assists the manager of a particular department and supervises two or more employees only in the actual manager's absence does not meet this requirement. In addition, hours worked by an employee cannot be credited more than once for different executives. This takes into consideration those organizations that use matrix management, i.e., a system of “shared” leadership, where supervision cuts across product and service lines in terms of accessing activities and advising top management on business operations, but where the supervisor/leader does not have the operating authority over all employees. Thus, a shared responsibility for the supervision of the same two employees in the same recognized organizational unit does not satisfy this requirement. However, a full-time employee who works 4 hours for one supervisor and 4 hours for a different supervisor will be credited as a half-time employee for both supervisors; and
(2) Has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees, are given particular weight.
(b) Particular weight. Criteria to determine whether an employee's suggestions and recommendations are given particular weight by higher-level management include, but are not limited to: whether it is part of the employee's job duties to make such suggestions and recommendations; the frequency with which such suggestions and recommendations are made or requested; and the frequency with which the employee's suggestions and recommendations are relied upon. Generally, an executive's suggestions and recommendations must pertain to employees whom the executive customarily and regularly directs. Particular weight does not include consideration of an occasional suggestion with regard to the change in status of a co-worker. An employee's suggestions and recommendations may still be deemed to have particular weight even if a higher level manager's recommendation has more importance and even if the employee does not have authority to make the ultimate decision as to the employee's change in status.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case:
Adams v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 1992).
Adams v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 1992).
· cites it 26× “5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (a). Section 551.205(b), the second element of the test, focuses on the nature of the work that the employee performs.”
Angelo v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 100 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
· cites it 5× “These two components of the primary duty test are whether those employees had authority to make or recommend certain personnel changes (“selecting, removing, advancing in pay, or promoting subordinate employees”), 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (a)(1) (emphasis added), which triggers the…”
Adam v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 782 (Ct. Cl. 1992).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (1990). DISCUSSION The parties raise two preliminary issues.”
Berg v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 459 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 7× “5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (1987). The federal district court concluded that: In the instant case, plaintiffs functions consist of “supporting services of substantial importance to the organization services.”
Christofferson v. United States, 67 Fed. Cl. 68 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 6× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 . The primary duty test is met if the employee: (1) Has authority to make personnel changes that include, but are not limited to, selecting, removing, advancing in pay, or promoting subordinate employees, or has authority to suggest or recommend such actions…”
Christofferson v. United States, 64 Fed. Cl. 316 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “205 states that “[a]n executive employee is a supervisor or manager who manages a Federal agency or any subdivision thereof (including the lowest recognized organization unit with a continuing function) and customarily and regularly directs the work of subordinate employees and…”
Roney v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Even under the OPM’s regulations, invoked by the defendant, plaintiff does not qualify as an administrative employee who “is an advisor, assistance [sic] or representative of management, or a specialist in a management or general business function or supporting service.”
Adams v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 772 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
· cites it 3× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (a)(1) (1999). Plaintiffs are correct with respect to virtually all representative plaintiffs.”
Grandits v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (Jan. 1, 2005). The parties have stipulated that Mr.”
Aamold v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 735 (Fed. Cl. 1997).
· cites it 2× “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.”
Bates v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 460 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.205 . Plaintiffs contend that these Office of Personnel Management (OPM) standards for executive exemption, are in conflict with the comparable Department of Labor (DoL) standards and therefore may not be used.”
Saraco v. Hallett, 831 F. Supp. 1154 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.205 . Only the primary duty test set forth in subsection (a) is at issue in this case.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.205(a)(1) — 1 case
Adam v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 782 (Ct. Cl. 1992).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (1990). DISCUSSION The parties raise two preliminary issues.”
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.