The Fluctuating Workweek Approach to Compensation – It Could Save You Money!

08 August 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Daniel A. Kaplan

With the new, increased salary requirements set to take effect later this year for exempt employees, many employers are asking how they might reduce their overtime obligations. One possible approach is the fluctuating workweek method of compensation. However, prior to implementing such an approach, employers would be wise to seek guidance from counsel because the fluctuating workweek method comes with its own potential challenges, and it may not be permissible under some state overtime laws, such as the California Labor Code.

Any employee – including non-exempt employees – can be paid a salary; receiving a salary does not automatically exempt the employee from overtime. A groundskeeper, a receptionist, and a file clerk can all be paid a salary; none are exempt under the general white collar exemptions (executive, administrative, professional). If such a nonexempt employee is paid a salary for all hours worked in any work week, their salary can be considered the straight time compensation for each hour worked. This is called the “fluctuating workweek” method of compensation (FWW). The employer then has to pay an additional amount not less than one-half times their regular rate for the hours worked over 40 in that week, as opposed to one and one-half.

The FWW method of compensation is expressly recognized by the Department of Labor (DOL) under a specific Fair Labor Standards Act regulation. Under this approach, an employee is paid a fixed salary for all hours worked in the week, which should fluctuate week to week. When the employee works in excess of 40 hours in the week, then the salary is divided by the total hours worked, which yields the “regular rate.” The regular rate is divided by two, and that is the “overtime” rate, which must then be multiplied by the number of hours worked over 40 to determine the overtime compensation owed for the week (which gets added to the fixed salary).

As an example, a data entry operator is employed at a salary of $500 a week for all hours worked. If he were to work 50 hours, the overtime pay owed under the FWW method is computed as follows:

Salary divided by hours worked ($500  50) = $10.00/hr. (regular rate); one-half the regular rate = $5.00/hr.; overtime hours x one-half the regular rate (10 x $5.00) = $50.00. Therefore, pay due: Salary ($500.00), plus overtime owed ($50) = Total Pay Owed for the week: $550.00

Compare this to the same employee who is paid on an hourly basis at $12.50/hr. ($500  40), and is therefore, owed overtime at the rate of 1½ times the hourly rate for hours worked over 40:

Overtime rate (one and one-half x the hourly rate) = $18.75 (1.5 x $12.50); Total Pay Owed for the week: ($12.50 x 40 ($500)) + ($18.75 x 10 ($187.50)) = $687.50

The FWW method of compensation can only be applied when the following conditions are met:

  1. The salary is fixed and provided each week irrespective of number of hours worked (no deductions for absences due to illness, or for working less than 40 hours in the week)
  2. The hours the employee works each week fluctuates
  3. The salary is sufficiently large enough so that in any given week, the employee is never paid less than minimum wage when the salary is divided by the total hours worked
  4. There is an understanding between the employer and employee that his salary is compensation for all hours worked, which is most often accomplished through the provision of an offer letter or a memorandum that clearly explains that the employee’s salary is provided for all hours worked in the week

The FWW method of compensation is legal and perfectly acceptable – except where state law does not recognize and approve its use. However, it can be challenging to apply because the “regular rate” will fluctuate from week to week, as the employee’s hours fluctuate. In addition, the DOL has stated that employees paid on the FWW method of compensation should not be subject to receipt of bonus compensation – if they are, this too may invalidate this approach to compensation. Should you require assistance or more information on the FWW method of compensation, you should seek guidance from knowledgeable counsel.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT