Sixth Circuit upholds Labor Department’s FLSA ‘primary duty’ analysis after Chevron reversal - Cloud and enterprise technology

The appeals court ruled that a former Cincinnati Bell IT employee was not entitled to overtime because his responsibilities qualified for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s computer employee exemption.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of an employee’s “primary duty” under the Fair Labor Standards Act, concluding that the guidance remains applicable after the Supreme Court ended Chevron deference in 2023.

The ruling came in Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC, a case involving a former information technology employee who sought overtime pay. The court determined that his responsibilities met the FLSA’s computer employee exemption and therefore did not require overtime compensation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo instructed federal courts to exercise their own judgment when interpreting ambiguous statutes rather than automatically deferring to agency interpretations. However, the 6th Circuit said the Labor Department’s guidance “gets it right” when identifying an employee’s primary duty.

The court noted that the department’s definition of a computer employee includes several primary duties that matched work performed by the plaintiff. Although some of his responsibilities did not fit the exemption as clearly, the duties that did correspond were central to his hiring and workload, supporting the conclusion that they represented his primary duties.

The employee also argued that he should not qualify for the exemption because he lacked formal training in computer systems or coding. The court rejected that point, stating that the FLSA does not require a specific degree, level of experience or job title for the computer employee exception. The Labor Department’s guidance likewise does not impose those requirements.

The department’s overtime analysis considers both an employee’s duties and salary. The 6th Circuit addressed the duties component in Bennink. In a separate 2024 case, the 5th Circuit examined the salary component and upheld the department’s consideration of salary while noting that a particular salary threshold could raise questions if it conflicted with the structure of the FLSA.

Sources: HR Dive.