5 C.F.R. § 551.512

Overtime pay entitlement

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

(a) An employee's overtime entitlement under this subpart includes:

(1) The straight time rate of pay times all overtime hours worked; plus

(2) One-half times the employee's hourly regular rate of pay times all overtime hours worked.

(b) An employee's “straight time rate of pay” is equal to the employee's rate of pay for his or her position (exclusive of any premiums, differentials, or cash awards or bonuses) except for an employee who is authorized annual premium pay under § 550.141 or § 550.151 of this chapter. For an employee who is authorized annual premium pay, straight time rate of pay is equal to basic pay plus annual premium pay divided by the hours for which the basic pay plus annual premium pay are intended.

(c) An employee has been paid in compliance with the overtime pay provisions of this subpart only if the employee has received pay at a rate at least equal to the employee's straight time rate of pay for all nonovertime hours of work in the workweek.

[45 FR 85665, Dec. 30, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 69181, Dec. 10, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · 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 18× “5 C.F.R. § 551.512 . Section 551.511(a) explains that “[a]n 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.”
Brooks v. Weinberger, 730 F. Supp. 1132 (D.D.C. 1989). · cites it 6× “By March 1989, GSA “discovered” it had been paying plaintiffs based upon a formula to figure overtime that differs from the one set out in 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 . 3 The “old” formula resulted in more money being paid for overtime than would be due under the § 551.”
Alamo v. United States, 850 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (a). The first question presented is whether the EMTs receive “the straight time rate of pay times all overtime hours worked” when the government pays them annual *1352 premium standby pay in addition .”
Delpin Aponte v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 80 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “5 See 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (a) (2008); cf. 29 C.F.”
Delpin-Aponte v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 5 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (a) (2013). What the Court has previously described as the “aggregate” approach, see Delpin Aponte, 83 Fed.”
Shea v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). · cites it 3× “at 36; see also 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (b). Mr. Shea argues against using OPM’s bump-up method because NCIS policy is to not leave a non-exempt “non-medical duties, such as coordinating resources among emergency-response agencies, directing incoming vehicles and personnel, and…”
Eric Bennett v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2025). · cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (a). An employee’s “straight time rate of pay” is “equal to the employee’s rate of pay for his or her position (exclusive of any premiums, differentials, or cash awards or bonuses),” with exceptions not present here for annual premium pay.”
Alamo v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 638 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (b). IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS • In their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs challenge the calculation of the Non-exempt Plaintiffs’ regularly scheduled overtime pay upon three grounds: First, .”
Cheung v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (b). 40 (emphasis in original) (brackets added).”
Elliott v. Krape Logistics, Inc. (JRG1) (E.D. Tenn. 2024). “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (a)(1)–(2). Based on Plaintiffs’ calculations, it appears that they were paid their straight time for all hours worked over forty.”
Young v. Psychiatric Servs. of East Tennessee, LLC (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “” 5 C.F.R. § 551.512 (a)(1)–(2). discretion to limit or deny liquidated damages, but only if an employer demonstrates both good faith and reasonable grounds for failing to pay wages.”
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.