Skip to main content

FLSA Exemptions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Wage and Hour Law
  • 327 Accesses

Abstract

In the past few decades, one of the most common and costly wage and hour legal disputes has been the classification of employees as “exempt” or “non-exempt” from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) coverage. Unless exempt, all US employees are covered by the FLSA and thus entitled to certain protections, such as minimum wage and overtime pay. The FLSA permits employers to classify employees as exempt, provided several specific criteria are met. Exempt employees are paid a fixed salary regardless of the number of hours they work and do not receive overtime. There are several exemptions for which an employee can qualify, with the three most common being the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions, which are collectively referenced as the “white-collar” exemptions. Although the specific criteria differ by exemption, all exemptions are based on two broad factors: the manner and amount of pay the employee receives (“salary test”) and the employee’s job duties (“duties test”). An employee must surpass the minimum thresholds for both tests to be exempt from the FLSA. To satisfy the salary test, an employee must be paid a minimum salary of $455 or more per week ($23,660 per year). To satisfy the duties test, the employee’s “primary duty” must meet certain characteristics. This chapter provides the criteria that must be met to qualify for each exemption along with methodological approaches to evaluate the duties test under each exemption. Evaluation of exempt status requires detailed job analysis data that addresses the work employees perform, the time spent performing that work, and the context in which that work is performed.

The original version of this chapter was revised. A correction to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74612-8_10

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Chap. 1 for further discussion about the class certification process.

  2. 2.

    Banks and Aubry (2005); Banks and Cohen (2005); Honorée et al. (2005); Ko and Kleiner (2005). Chapter 2 provides an overview of applicable job analysis methods. In later sections, aspects of those methods that are related to FLSA exemption classification are highlighted.

  3. 3.

    The Department of Labor suggested the use of “overtime eligible/overtime protected” and “overtime ineligible/not overtime protected” in response to frustration expressed by stakeholders over the nonintuitive nature of “non-exempt” and “exempt” terminology (U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).

  4. 4.

    The salary test is sometimes further broken up into two components : the “salary basis test” and the “salary level test” (see, e.g., Miller (2016)).

  5. 5.

    29 U.S.C. §218(a).

  6. 6.

    29 C.F.R. §541.100.

  7. 7.

    See 29 C.F.R. §541.102.

  8. 8.

    See Banks (2004).

  9. 9.

    See Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.

  10. 10.

    This approach is similar to what has previously been described as a job task analysis (JTA). See Gael (1988) for additional detail on this approach.

  11. 11.

    O*NET is publically available at https://www.onetonline.org/

  12. 12.

    Tasks beginning with verbs such as “verify” or “ensure” do not describe observable behavior and can be problematic if used in an observational study.

  13. 13.

    Harvey (1991) questions the usefulness of this type of scale because it doesn’t allow for comparisons across jobs. However, cross-job comparisons are rarely of interest in this context.

  14. 14.

    See Chap. 2 for additional discussion on purposeful distortion.

  15. 15.

    29 C.F.R. §541.200.

  16. 16.

    See 29 C.F.R. §541.201 (a).

  17. 17.

    See 29 C.F.R. §541.201 (b).

  18. 18.

    29 C.F.R. §541.203 (a).

  19. 19.

    See, e.g., Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services; Harris v. Superior Court.

  20. 20.

    Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.

  21. 21.

    Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.

  22. 22.

    McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB.

  23. 23.

    Petersen, Giovannone, and Finkel (2017).

  24. 24.

    29 C.F.R. §541.202 (c).

  25. 25.

    29 C.F.R. §541.300.

  26. 26.

    29 C.F.R. §541.301.

  27. 27.

    See 29 C.F.R. §541.301.

  28. 28.

    See 29 C.F.R. §541.301(c).

  29. 29.

    29 C.F.R. §541.301 (e).

  30. 30.

    Buster, Roth, and Bobko (2005).

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., Wooten and Prien (2007); Buster et al. (2005); Prien and Hughes (2004); Levine, Maye, Ulm, and Gordon (1997).

  32. 32.

    29 C.F.R. §541.3.

  33. 33.

    See 29 C.F.R. §541.500.

  34. 34.

    Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

  35. 35.

    Executive Office of the President (2014).

  36. 36.

    US Department of Labor (2016).

  37. 37.

    State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al. (2016).

  38. 38.

    State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al. (2017).

  39. 39.

    Campbell (2017a).

  40. 40.

    Campbell (2017b).

References

Statutes and Regulations

Court Cases

  • Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 87 Cal. App. 4th 805 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U. S. ___ (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Insurance), 2011 WL 6823963 (Cal.), __P.3d.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1361 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB, No. 12-CV03035 (E.D. Cal.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 785 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al., No. 4:16-cv-00731, (E.D. Tex. 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  • State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al., No. 4:16-cv-00731, (E.D. Tex. 2017).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chester Hanvey .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hanvey, C. (2018). FLSA Exemptions. In: Wage and Hour Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74612-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics