Was a levee-district superintendent owed compensatory time for overtime work?

Plain-English summary

The Fifth Louisiana Levee District asked about a superintendent's claim for compensatory time. In 2001, the attorney general's office did not decide whether that particular employee was owed leave. It said FLSA overtime exemptions for bona fide executive, administrative, and professional employees depended on employment facts that the office would not determine.

The opinion also pointed to a Louisiana court decision recognizing that an established employer policy could obligate compensatory leave for an employee otherwise exempt from federal overtime coverage. That meant the answer could not be drawn from the federal exemption alone; the district's actual employment facts and leave policy mattered.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Levee district officials at the time

The office offered the federal exemption and employer-policy principles but left the superintendent's actual classification and entitlement undecided.

Superintendent and other employees at the time

The opinion did not establish that the superintendent was exempt or that he had earned compensatory leave. It identified the facts and policy that would bear on those questions.

Common questions

Q: Did the attorney general decide the superintendent was exempt from overtime?
A: No. The office said employee-exemption status was primarily factual and declined to determine those facts.

Q: Could an exempt employee still receive compensatory leave?
A: The opinion cited a state decision under which an employer's established leave policy could create that obligation.

Q: Did the opinion order the district to pay the claimed time?
A: No. It supplied legal guidelines and left the specific claim unresolved.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quoted the exemption in 29 USC 213 and a federal appellate decision discussing then-current regulations for executive, administrative, and professional employees. It cited Knecht, et al v. Board of Trustees, 591 So. 2d 690 (La. 1991), for the separate effect of an established compensatory-leave policy.

Citations and references

• 29 USC 213 (federal overtime exemption)
• 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.207(a) (then-current regulatory discussion)
• Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 203 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2000)
• Knecht, et al v. Board of Trustees, 591 So. 2d 690 (La. 1991)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/00-0503

Original opinion text

January 17, 2001
OPINION 00-503

Mr. Reynold Minsky
President, Board of Commissioners
Fifth Louisiana Levee District
222 North Cedar Street
Tallulah, LA 71282

Dear Mr. Minsky:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attorney General in regard to payment of compensatory time claimed by the Superintendent of the Fifth Louisiana Levee District.

This office has recognized under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC 210, that there are certain exemptions to the overtime compensation requirements that are found in 29 USC

213. Therein it is provided in part as follows:

     (a) The provisions of section 206 (except subsection (d) in the case of
     paragraph (1) of this subsection) and section 207 of this title shall not apply
     with respect to -

     (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or
     professional capacity * * * .

The Courts have recognized that the FLSA requires employers to pay overtime compensation to employees who work more than 40 hours per regular work week, but excludes those employees working in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity. In this regard the United States Court of Appeal in Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 203 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2000) observed as follows:

Under 29 C.F.R. Sec 541.0, et seq., the Secretary of Labor has defined the terms executive, administrative, and professional, by setting out "long" tests for employees earning more than $155 per week but less than $250 per week, and "short" tests for employees earning more than $250 per week, * * * An administrative employee is an employee whose primary duty consists of office or nonmanual work directly related to management policies or general business operations for the employer or the employer's customers, which includes work requiring the exercise of discretion and independent judgment, 29 C.F.R. Secs 541.2(e)(2), 541.2(e)(1).

The exercise of discretion and independent judgment necessitates

Page 2

Mr. Reynold S. Minsky
OPINION 00-503
Page 2
consideration and evaluation of alternative courses of conduct and taking action or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.207(a). This exercise of discretion and independent judgment must relate to matters of consequence. 29 C.F.R.
Sec. 541.207(ba)-(c)(1). Final decision making authority over matters of consequence is not necessary.

The courts have stated that the decision of whether an employee is exempt under the Act is primarily a question of fact regarding the employment history and inferences based on these facts. Jamail, Inc. v. Carpenters Dist. Council, 954 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1992).

This office has a policy that it will not seek out the facts nor issue an opinion on questions of fact.

However, with regard to your question we find it pertinent to note that in Atty. Gen. Op. 98- 114 this office recognized that the court in Knecht, et al v. Board of Trustees, 591 So. 2d 690 (La. 1991) found that an employer may be required to give compensatory time for overtime to an employee who is otherwise exempted from FLSA coverage when the employer has established a policy that allows for compensatory leave. It was observed that the Board's actions lead the plaintiffs to reasonably expect that they would receive paid leave for the hours of overtime pursuant to the leave policy, such an obligation having been implied.

We have set forth certain guidelines recognized by the court, and hope this will be of assistance to you with regard to your question.

Sincerely yours,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

By:____
BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/bbr

OPINION 00-503

Page 3

Mr. Reynold S. Minsky
OPINION 00-503
Page 3

58 - Labor - Labor Laws
29 USC 210

While FLSA requires employers to
pay overtime to employees who work
more than 40 hours per regular work
week, those employees working in a
bona fide executive, administrative or
professional capacity are excluded.

Mr. Reynold Minsky
President, Board of Commissioners
Fifth Louisiana Levee District
222 North Cedar Street
Tallulah, LA 71282

Date Received: Dec. 28, 2000
Date Released: January 17, 2001

BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE
Assistant Attorney General