(a) An employee's “hourly regular rate” is computed by dividing the total remuneration paid to an employee in the workweek by the total number of hours of work in the workweek for which such compensation was paid.
(b) “Total remuneration” includes all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, an employee except:
(1) Payments as rewards for service the amount of which is not measured by or dependent on hours of work, production, or efficiency (e.g., a cash award for a suggestion made by an employee and adopted by an agency);
(2) Reimbursements for travel expenses, or other similar expenses, incurred by an employee in furtherance of an agency's interest, which are not related to hours of work;
(3) Payments made in recognition of services performed during a given period, if both the fact that payment is to be made and the amount of the payment are determined at the sole discretion of the agency (i.e., discretionary cash awards or bonuses);
(4) Contributions by an agency to a fund for retirement, insurance, or similar benefits;
(5) Extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for hours of work performed by an employee in excess of eight in a day, or in excess of the normal workweek applicable to the employee;
(6) Extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for hours of work performed by an employee on a Sunday or a holiday where such premium rate is at least one and one-half times the employee's rate of pay for work performed in nonovertime hours on other days; or
(7) Extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for hours of work performed by an employee outside his or her regular working hours, where such premium rate is at least one and one-half times the employee's rate of pay for work performed in nonovertime hours.
[45 FR 85665, Dec. 30, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 47688, Dec. 16, 1987, and 53 FR 27147, July 19, 1988; 56 FR 20343, May 3, 1991; 64 FR 69180, Dec. 10, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case:
Abbey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
Abbey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 53× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.511 (a). The FLSA, 29 U.S.”
Brooks v. Weinberger, 730 F. Supp. 1132 (D.D.C. 1989).
· cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 551.511 . 7 In this instance, Gabriel’s total remuneration is the $1610.”
Adams v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 602 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“5 C.F.R. §§ 551.511 — 551.512. A challenge to the classification of those hours, however, is not implicit in the complaint.”
Alexander v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 653 (Ct. Cl. 1983).
“” FPM Letter 551-1, Attachment 5; see also 5 C.F.R. § 551.511 (a) (1982). The plaintiffs’ contention is that the defendant erroneously included, in the determination of the plaintiffs’ regular rate, certain premium pay which they received, together with the overtime hours to…”
Alexander v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 475 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.511 (a). Plaintiffs contend that the INS incorrectly computed their regular rate by dividing the total remuneration earned as border patrol agents by the number of hours worked as both border patrol agents and immigration inspectors.”
Alamo v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 638 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.511 (a). As discussed above, there is no dispute that the government calculates the Non-exempt Plaintiffs’ total remuneration by adding basic pay and standby duty premium pay.”
Coronado Jr. v. Flowers Food, Inc. (D.N.M. 2021).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 551.511 (a). Any employer who violates §§ 206 or 207 of the FLSA may be liable to the affected employee “in the amount of their unpaid minimum wages, or unpaid overtime compensation, as the case may be, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”
Eric Bennett v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2025).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 551.511 (a). In response to the Board’s October 31, 2024 Order, the agency submitted a declaration under penalty of perjury from a Senior Payroll Program Specialist, Leave and Earnings Statements (LES), and overtime pay calculation tables reflecting that the agency…”
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.