Search form

Day Rate Satisfies FLSA’s Highly Compensated Employee Salary Requirement, Fifth Circuit Rules

By Jeffrey W. Brecher, Michael J. Lombardino and David T. Wiley
  • August 29, 2019

Paying an employee a day rate of $1,000 per day satisfies the salary basis test for purposes of the overtime exemption applicable to a “highly compensated employee” (HCE) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled (2-1). Faludi v. U.S. Shale Solutions, L.L.C., No. 17-20808 (Aug. 21, 2019).

The Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction over Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.


Jeff Faludi, a former attorney, took a consulting job at U.S. Shale Solutions in 2014. The parties signed an agreement in which Faludi agreed to work for the company as an independent contractor at a rate of $1,000 per day for every day he worked in Houston, and $1,350 per day for every day he worked outside of Houston. It was undisputed that Faludi was paid at least $1,000 for every week in which he performed work for U.S. Shale, and he satisfied the duties requirement for the exemption. His annual compensation was approximately $260,000.

Faludi left U.S. Shale in March 2016. Shortly thereafter, he filed a lawsuit against the company for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA. He alleged he was misclassified as an independent contractor. The company argued Faludi was properly classified, but even if he was an employee, he was exempt as an HCE. Finding issues of fact with respect to Faludi’s status as an independent contractor, the district court nonetheless granted summary judgment to the company, finding Faludi was exempt, and dismissed the case.

HCE Exemption

The HCE exemption provides that an employee is exempt from FLSA’s overtime requirements if the worker:

  1. Receives a total annual compensation of at least $100,000; and
  2. Customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties of an executive, administrative, or professional employee.

The employee also must be compensated on a “salary basis” at a rate of not less than $455 per week. An employee meets the “salary basis” requirement if he or she regularly receives each pay period, on a weekly or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee’s compensation.

Faludi argued the HCE exemption did not apply because he was not paid on a salary basis (he was paid at a daily rate and did not receive a guaranteed weekly salary). He also noted that, when he worked for less than one day and he submitted an invoice for less than the full $1,000, he was paid less than the daily guarantee.

The district court agreed with the company that the HCE exemption applied to Faludi and granted summary to the company. Faludi appealed.

Fifth Circuit Decision

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court and affirmed summary judgment to the company. The Court found the payment of $1,000 if Faludi worked any amount of time during the week satisfied the required weekly guarantee under the HCE exemption. It held that Faludi’s voluntary reduction of his guaranteed payment, by submitting reduced invoices, did not invalidate satisfaction of the salary basis test, because “to hold otherwise would permit employees to preclude reliance on the … exemption by intentionally reducing their own pay.”

Faludi also argued that the “reasonable relationship” test in 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b) (between the guaranteed amount paid and the amount actually earned) applied. The Court held the reasonable relationship test did not apply to the HCE exemption.


Faludi is an important decision to employers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas who charge their customers a day rate for workers staffed on projects, such as in the oilfield services and similar sectors. Employers elsewhere should exercise caution. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) has reached a conclusion opposite to the Fifth Circuit’s.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this decision or any other wage and hour development.

©2019 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

December 3, 2019

Virginia Task Force Releases Recommendations to Address Worker Misclassification

December 3, 2019

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s Inter-Agency Taskforce on Worker Misclassification and Payroll Fraud has offered 11 recommendations in its report on employee misclassification. In August 2019, the Governor reconstituted a taskforce charged with providing recommendations on how to “measure and combat misclassification in Virginia.”... Read More

November 25, 2019

Fluctuating Workweek Pay Method Not Available in Pennsylvania, State Supreme Court Holds

November 25, 2019

In a long-awaited decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has concluded that the fluctuating workweek (FWW) pay method is not a proper method of overtime pay calculation under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., 2019 Pa. LEXIS 6521 (Nov. 20, 2019). As a result, the Court affirmed the... Read More

November 6, 2019

Labor Department Proposes Changes to Clarify Use of FLSA’s ‘Fluctuating Workweek’ Pay Method

November 6, 2019

Persistent confusion over the Department of Labor’s (DOL) “fluctuating workweek” (FWW) pay method to satisfy employers’ obligation to pay overtime has deterred many from using it. Now, the DOL has proposed changes to clarify the pay method. Under DOL regulations on the FWW pay method, if certain conditions are met, an employer may pay... Read More

Related Practices