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
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Chap. 1 for further discussion about the class certification process.
- 2.
- 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.
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.
29 U.S.C. §218(a).
- 6.
29 C.F.R. §541.100.
- 7.
See 29 C.F.R. §541.102.
- 8.
See Banks (2004).
- 9.
See Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.
- 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.
O*NET is publically available at https://www.onetonline.org/
- 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.
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.
See Chap. 2 for additional discussion on purposeful distortion.
- 15.
29 C.F.R. §541.200.
- 16.
See 29 C.F.R. §541.201 (a).
- 17.
See 29 C.F.R. §541.201 (b).
- 18.
29 C.F.R. §541.203 (a).
- 19.
See, e.g., Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services; Harris v. Superior Court.
- 20.
Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.
- 21.
Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange.
- 22.
McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB.
- 23.
Petersen, Giovannone, and Finkel (2017).
- 24.
29 C.F.R. §541.202 (c).
- 25.
29 C.F.R. §541.300.
- 26.
29 C.F.R. §541.301.
- 27.
See 29 C.F.R. §541.301.
- 28.
See 29 C.F.R. §541.301(c).
- 29.
29 C.F.R. §541.301 (e).
- 30.
Buster, Roth, and Bobko (2005).
- 31.
- 32.
29 C.F.R. §541.3.
- 33.
See 29 C.F.R. §541.500.
- 34.
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
- 35.
Executive Office of the President (2014).
- 36.
US Department of Labor (2016).
- 37.
State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al. (2016).
- 38.
State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al. (2017).
- 39.
Campbell (2017a).
- 40.
Campbell (2017b).
References
Banks, C. G. (2004). Keeping exempt jobs exempt. HR Advisor: Legal and Practical Guidance, 21–27.
Banks, C. G., & Aubry, L. W. (2005). How to conduct a wage and hour audit for exemptions to overtime Laws. Bender’s Labor & Employment Bulletin, 292–302.
Banks, C. G., & Cohen, L. (2005). Wage and hour litigation: I-O psychology’s new frontier. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Buster, M. A., Roth, P. L., & Bobko, P. (2005). A process for content validation of education and experience=based minimum qualifications: An approach resulting in federal court approval. Personnel Psychology, 58, 771–799.
Campbell, B. (2017a, November 15). House committee presses Acosta on OT, fiduciary rules. Law360. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/985740/house-committee-presses-acosta-on-ot-fiduciary-rules
Campbell, B. (2017b, October 30). DOL to appeal invalidation of white collar overtime rule. Law360. Retrieved from https://www.law360.com/articles/979597/dol-to-appeal-invalidation-of-white-collar-overtime-rule
Executive Office of the President. (2014). Updating and modernizing overtime regulations: Memorandum for the secretary of labor (79 FR 15209). Retrieved from https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-06138
Gael, S. (1988). The job analysis handbook for business, industry, and government. New York: Willey.
Harvey, R. J. (1991). Job analysis. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Honorée, A. L., Wyld, D. C., & Juban, R. L. (2005). A step-by-step model for employers to comply with the fairpay overtime initiative under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Equal Opportunities International, 24(2), 54–66.
Ko, H. Y., & Kleiner, B. H. (2005). Analysing jobs to determine exempt or non-exempt status. Equal Opportunities International, 24(5/6), 93–100.
Levine, E. L., Maye, D. M., Ulm, R. A., & Gordon, T. R. (1997). A methodology for developing and validating minimum qualifications (MQs). Personnel Psychology, 50, 1009–1023.
Miller, S. (2016, November 1). It takes two: Exempt employees must meet both salary and duties tests. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/compensation/pages/overtime-salary-duties-tests.aspx
Petersen, K., Giovannone, J., & Finkel, N. (2017). It’s a strange new world in California for the administrative exemption. Wage & hour litigation blog [web log post]. Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Retrieved from https://www.wagehourlitigation.com/misclassification/strange-new-world-for-administrative-exemption/
Prien, E. P., & Hughes, G. L. (2004). A content-oriented approach to setting minimum qualifications. Public Personnel Management, 33(1), 89–98.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2015). Defining and delimiting the exemptions for the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees [notice of proposed rulemaking]. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-07-06/pdf/2015-15464.pdf#page=2
U.S. Department of Labor. (2016). Defining and delimiting the exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees (81 FR 32391). [final rule]. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/23/2016-11754/defining-and-delimiting-the-exemptions-for-executive-administrative-professional-outside-sales-and
Wooten, W., & Prien, E. P. (2007). Synthesizing minimum qualifications using an occupational area job analysis questionnaire. Public Personnel Management, 36(3), 307–314.
Statutes and Regulations
29 C.F.R. §541 et seq.
29 C.F.R. §541.100.
29 C.F.R. §541.102.
29 C.F.R. §541.2.
29 C.F.R. §541.200.
29 C.F.R. §541.201 (a).
29 C.F.R. §541.201 (b).
29 C.F.R. §541.202 (c).
29 C.F.R. §541.203.
29 C.F.R. §541.203 (a).
29 C.F.R. §541.3.
29 C.F.R. §541.300.
29 C.F.R. §541.301.
29 C.F.R. §541.301(c).
29 C.F.R. §541.301 (e).
29 C.F.R. §541.302.
29 C.F.R. §541.500.
29 U.S.C. §218(a).
Court Cases
Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 87 Cal. App. 4th 805 (2001).
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U. S. ___ (2012).
Harris v. Superior Court (Liberty Mutual Insurance), 2011 WL 6823963 (Cal.), __P.3d.
Hodge v. Aon Ins. Services, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1361 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011).
McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, FSB, No. 12-CV03035 (E.D. Cal.).
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Company, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 785 (1999).
State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al., No. 4:16-cv-00731, (E.D. Tex. 2016).
State of Nevada et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor et al., No. 4:16-cv-00731, (E.D. Tex. 2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74612-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74611-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74612-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)