(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).
Newson-Pace v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
“11 at *6; see also 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 . Under the administrative exemption, FEMA determined that the primary duties of the position are “office or non-manual in nature .”
Smith v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (a). The FLSA’s implementing regulations provide various tests and definitions for a worker’s “primary duty” and for terms such as “management.”
Shea v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2018).
“See 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.205 -.207. The parties agree that neither the “executive” nor the “professional” categories apply to Mr.”
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…”
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.”
Bates v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 319 (Fed. Cl. 2004).
“Plaintiffs are not paid FLSA overtime because defendant has taken the position that plaintiffs are executive and/or administrative employees under 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.205 and 551.206 (2003), respectively, and thus exempt from entitlement to overtime pay.”
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…”
Adams v. United States, 350 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“This OPM regulation was later revised and renumbered as 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (1999). See Adams II, 44 Fed.”
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.”
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.”
Adams v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 616 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 551.205 (1999). . In its briefing, although not in oral argument, plaintiffs also advance an alternative argument that they are entitled to interest if the court holds they cannot collect liquidated damages.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 551.205(a)(1) — 1 case
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.