Bob DeRose, Esq. – The Paycheck Warrior – bderose@barkanmeizlish.com On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division issued Opinion Letter FLSA2026-5, addressing a question that comes up more often than you might think: Can someone who is classified as an exempt employee also pick up hourly shifts in a different, non-exempt role — and what happens to their overtime rights when they do? The short version, from the DOL's perspective: an exempt employee can take on occasional hourly work in a secondary, non-exempt role without losing their exempt status — as long as the employer is genuinely meeting every requirement of the exemption to begin with. And here is the part employees need to hear clearly: this letter does not change the rules. It applies them. The basic tenets of the white-collar exemptions are exactly where they were the day before this letter issued. Let me walk through what this letter actually says, and just as importantly, what it doesn't. more The Facts the DOL Was Given The opinion arose from an academic medical center that operates a non-profit acute care hospital. The hospital employs "Staff Nurses," whom it treats as non-exempt and pays hourly with overtime, and "Nursing Professional Development Specialists," whom it treats as exempt and pays a salary of roughly $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period (about $2,000 per week). The Specialists sometimes pick up Staff Nurse shifts on weekends — typically one, occasionally two, 12-hour shifts — on top of roughly 40 hours of Specialist work Monday through Friday. The hospital pays them an hourly rate for those extra shifts, derived from the Specialist's salary divided by 40. The employer asked the DOL: does this arrangement break the exemption or trigger overtime? What the DOL Concluded The Division concluded that, on these facts, the extra hourly work does not destroy the exemption and does not, by itself, create overtime obligations. The reasoning rests on two pillars that every employee should commit to memory, because they are the exemption: One: Primary duty. To be exempt under Section 13(a)(1), an employee's primary duty must still be the performance of exempt work. The DOL pointed out that the Specialist spends the substantial majority of working time — roughly 40 hours a week — in the exempt Specialist role, and that a weekend shift or two as a Staff Nurse is a supplement, not a substitution. The regulations say that spending more than 50% of time on exempt work generally satisfies the primary duty test, though it is a qualitative analysis, not a stopwatch. Two: Salary basis and level. The employee must be paid a genuine, predetermined salary at or above the regulatory minimum ($684 per week), and that salary cannot fluctuate based on the quantity or quality of work. The Specialist's roughly $2,000-per-week salary cleared the threshold, and the DOL found that adding extra hourly pay on top of a guaranteed salary is expressly permitted under 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(a), which allows additional compensation "on any basis" without defeating the exemption. So the headline answer is yes — but the conditions buried inside that "yes" are where the real fight always lives. Why This Letter Changes Nothing About the Core Rules Here is the message I most want employees to take away. FLSA2026-5 is an application of existing law, not a new rule. The DOL itself frames it that way, leaning on regulations that have existed for decades and prior opinion letters going back to 2005. An employer who waves this letter around as a license to reclassify workers or cut overtime is overreading it. The letter is loaded with conditions, and those conditions are the whole ballgame: It assumes the Specialist genuinely meets all the duties, salary-level, and salary-basis requirements in the first place. The DOL stated plainly that it was assuming these were satisfied based on the employer's representations. That assumption is doing enormous work. The DOL expressly warned in a footnote that if, over time, the employee's real primary duty turns out to be the non-exempt work, the employer "could not properly claim the exemption" in any workweek — and overtime would then be owed on the combined hours of both jobs. Footnote 7 is the part employers tend not to quote. The letter is also explicitly built on the employer's "full and fair description" of the facts. The DOL closed by noting that any other factual background "might require a conclusion different from the one expressed herein." In other words, the opinion is only as good as the facts it was handed. And in my experience representing employees, the facts an employer presents to the DOL and the facts on the ground are frequently two very different things. Where the Real Disputes Will Be — And What to Watch This is the part of the analysis where I'm offering my own read as an advocate for employees rather than reciting the letter. I'll flag these as open considerations, not settled conclusions, because the letter does not resolve them: The label is not the job. An employer can title someone a "Specialist" and pay a salary, but if the day-to-day reality is that the person is doing non-exempt frontline work most of the time, the title and the salary won't save the exemption. The duties test is about what you actually do, not what your job description says. The letter assumes a clean Specialist role with real autonomy, discretion, and educational responsibility. Many real-world "exempt" jobs are nowhere near that clean. Watch the creep. The DOL blessed one or occasionally two 12-hour shifts a week — about 23%, occasionally 38%, of total hours. The letter does not tell us where the line is. If an employer steadily increases the hourly shifts until the non-exempt work becomes the bulk of the week, the primary-duty analysis can flip. The footnote 7 warning is precisely about this scenario. There is no bright-line percentage in the letter, and employees should not assume one exists. The salary must be real, not reverse-engineered. The letter notes the hourly rate was derived from the salary, and the DOL found no need to apply the "reasonable relationship" test of § 541.604(b) because the underlying compensation wasn't computed on an hourly, daily, or shift basis. That's a meaningful distinction. If an employer's "salary" is functionally just an hourly rate dressed up — where pay actually rises and falls with hours — that's a different case, and § 541.604(b) could come into play. The letter does not bless arrangements where the salary is a fiction. Reliance has limits. The letter is an official interpretation that an employer can rely on under the Portal-to-Portal Act — but reliance protects an employer only to the extent its real facts match the facts in the letter. An employer that relies on FLSA2026-5 while running a materially different operation is not protected by it. The Bottom Line for Employees If you're salaried, genuinely doing exempt work as your main job, and you pick up the occasional hourly shift in another role for extra pay, this letter says — consistent with long-standing law — that those extra shifts alone don't strip you of exempt status or automatically entitle you to overtime. But flip that around, because this is where employees get hurt: if your "exempt" title doesn't match your real duties, if the secondary hourly work is creeping toward the majority of your time, or if your "salary" is really just an hourly wage in a costume, then this opinion letter does nothing to legitimize your classification. The exemption either fits your real working life, or it doesn't, and FLSA2026-5 did not lower that bar one inch. If you think you've been misclassified — or your employer has started pointing to this new letter to justify how it pays you — that's worth a closer look at your actual duties, hours, and pay structure.
