Do high-earning professionals always qualify for overtime exemption?
ABSTRACT: The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, high-earning professionals may only be treated by an employer as exempt from overtime pay requirements if they are paid on a salaried basis.
In Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc., et al. v. Michael J. Hewitt, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that highly compensated professional employees who were not paid a fixed salary could not be treated as overtime-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The FLSA provides that employees with a total annual salary of $107,432 or more, with “at least $684 per week paid on a salary or fee basis,” may be exempt from FLSA’s overtime pay requirement under 29 C.F.R. §541.601.
Over a four-year period, Hewitt worked for Helix Energy Solutions on an offshore oil rig, generally working more than 80 hours per week during his time on the vessel. Helix paid Hewitt on a daily-rate basis, which ranged from $963 up to $1,341 per day. He received no overtime compensation. Helix calculated Hewitt’s paychecks by multiplying his daily rate by the number of days he worked during the pay period. He consistently earned more than $200,000 annually.
Helix argued that the salary basis test should not apply to highly compensated employees who would otherwise qualify for the “relaxed duties” test under §541.601, which measures whether the employee “customarily and regularly” performs at least one of the duties of an exempt executive, administrative, or professional employee. The Court rejected this argument, affirming the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision that Helix Energy violated FLSA’s overtime pay requirement because Hewitt was paid a daily rate rather than on a salary basis.
The Court held that a daily rate pay does not satisfy the salary basis requirement because the amount the employee earned would change depending on the number of days worked. “Salary basis” is defined in 29 C.F.R. §541.602 as pay that is “regularly received each pay period on a weekly, or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation,” regardless of the quantity or quality of work. The Court explained that to qualify as a salary, the employee must receive a “steady and predictable stream of pay, week after week,” regardless of the number of days worked. Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that “an employee is paid on a salary basis only if [he] receives the full salary for any week in which [he] performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. The full salary amount is not subject to reduction because the employee worked less than the full week.
Justice Kagan summarized the majority’s interpretation of Section 541.601: “[m]ost simply put, an employee paid on an hourly basis is paid by the hour, an employee paid on a daily basis is paid by the day, and an employee paid on a weekly basis is paid by the week.” Under this narrow interpretation of FLSA’s language, a daily pay rate does not meet the salary requirement even if they would otherwise exceed the weekly or annual salary requirements.
In a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with Helix Energy Solutions, noting that Hewitt’s daily rate was higher than the required weekly threshold. Just Kavanaugh argued that Section 602 allows for a “predetermined amount” to be part of the employee’s compensation. Under this loose reading of Section 602, rejected by the majority, Hewitt’s salary would be sufficient for FLSA’s overtime exemption.
Because the Court failed to consider multiple arguments raised by the parties that it deemed waived, employers may anticipate more litigation on the application of Section 601 and 602 in the future.related services

8th Circuit Changes Course in Standing for States to Sue EEOC over Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ...

Truck Driver Misclassification Claim Can Move Forward as Collective Action Under FLSA ...
About Employment & Labor Law Blog
Baker Sterchi's Employment & Labor Law Blog examines topics and developments of interest to employers, Human Resources professionals, and others with an interest in recent legal developments concerning the workplace. This blog is focused on the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, including Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and on major developments under federal law, and at the EEOC and NLRB. Learn more about the editor, David M. Eisenberg, and our Employment & Labor practice.
Subscribe via email
Subscribe to rss feeds
RSS FeedsABOUT baker sterchi blogs
Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC (Baker Sterchi) publishes this website as a service to our clients, colleagues and others, for informational purposes only. These materials are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, and are not a substitute for sound legal advice. You should not base any action or lack of action on any information included in our website, without first seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice. If you contact us through our website or via email, no attorney-client relationship is created, and no confidential information should be transmitted. Communication with Baker Sterchi by e-mail or other transmissions over the Internet may not be secure, and you should not send confidential electronic messages that are not adequately encrypted.
The hiring of an attorney is an important decision, which should not be based solely on information appearing on our website. To the extent our website has provided links to other Internet resources, those links are not under our control, and we are not responsible for their content. We do our best to provide you current, accurate information; however, we cannot guarantee that this information is the most current, correct or complete. In addition, you should not take this information as a promise or indication of future results.
Disclaimer
The Employment & Labor Law Blog is made available by Baker Sterchi Cowden & Rice LLC for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and the firm.
Confidential information
Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages related to the Employment & Labor Law Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys. The Employment & Labor Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.