Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 14, 2023
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comOn February 22, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held that certain highly compensated employees are entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) if they are not paid on a salary basis.
In Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. et al. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. __ (2023), an oil rig supervisor earning over $200,000.00 per year sued for overtime as he was not paid a weekly rate, but rather a daily rate. Helix argued that Hewitt was a highly compensated exempt executive employee.
By way of background, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are required to pay their employees a minimum wage and overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week unless the employee is exempt from these requirements.
Under the FLSA, an employee is considered a bona fide executive excluded from the FLSA’s protections if the employee meets three tests: (1) the salary basis test, which requires that the employee receive a predetermined and fixed salary that does not vary with the amount of time worked; (2) the “salary level” test, which requires the preset salary to exceed a specified amount; and (3) the job “duties” test, which considers whether the employee has responsibility for managing the enterprise, directing other employees, and hiring and firing other employees.
In the underlying litigation, the dispute centered around whether Hewitt met the requirements under the Department of Labor regulations for being paid on a salary basis. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Texas, alleging he was misclassified as exempt and was therefore entitled to overtime. The district court disagreed with the plaintiff, holding that because he received at least $936 in any week that he performed work for his employer—i.e., more than the $455 per week required to meet the minimum requirement for the salary basis test—he was properly classified as exempt.
The plaintiff then appealed this ruling to the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the plaintiff, reasoning that the salary basis test requires an employee to be paid the same amount of salary on a weekly basis or less frequently, irrespective of the days worked in the particular workweek. Because the plaintiff’s pay varied by the number of days he worked in a workweek, the Fifth Circuit concluded it did not meet the regulatory definition of a “salary” for purposes of the white-collar exemptions under the FLSA. The employer appealed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling to the United States Supreme Court. It was undisputed that Hewitt satisfied (2) and (3); at issue was whether he was paid on a salary basis.
In Justice Kagan’s majority opinion, the Supreme Court held:
The Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt decision provides important guidance for employers who have Highly Compensated Employees who are paid on a daily basis. To qualify for the Highly Compensated Employee exemption, these employees must now be paid at least $684 per week on a salary or fee basis, regardless of their daily pay rate.
Employers who do not comply with this requirement may face liability for unpaid overtime wages and other damages. On the other hand, Highly Compensated Employees who are paid on a daily basis and do not receive at least the minimum weekly salary amount on a salary or fee basis may be entitled to overtime pay.
In conclusion, the Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt decision clarifies the “salary basis” test for Highly Compensated Employees paid on a daily basis and emphasizes the importance of complying with FLSA requirements. Employers who have questions about how to classify their employees should consult with the employment law team at Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC to ensure compliance with the FLSA and other applicable wage and hour laws.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!