Ninth Circuit: Social Workers are not “Learned Professionals” Under FLSA and are Therefore not Exempt From Overtime Requirements
2 min read
Sep 12, 2011
On September 9, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that social workers in the state of Washington are not “learned professionals” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore, are not exempt from overtime compensation.
By way of background, under both the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state laws, employers are excused from paying overtime compensation to employees who are classified as “exempt.” In order to determine whether an employee is exempt or not, the FLSA and state laws set forth various exemptions, which typically have a host of requirements that must be met before an employee can be categorized as exempt from overtime compensation.
This group of Washington state social workers filed suit, arguing that they were not paid for overtime worked. The State, on the other hand, claimed that they did not have to pay the workers overtime because they were exempt and fell under the “learned professional” exemption of the FLSA. Though the State prevailed on its summary judgment motion at the district court level, on appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the State failed to meet its burden of showing that social workers meet the regulatory requirements of being categorized as a “learned professional.” Specifically, the Court held that the employer had not demonstrated that being a social worker required advanced knowledge customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction, largely because the State had relatively loose eligibility requirements in order to become a social worker. The position only required a degree in one of various academic disciplines or coursework in those disciplines, which the Court held, was not enough to fall under the umbrella of a “learned professional.” Noting that exemptions under the FLSA are typically construed against the employer, and because of its factual findings relating to this particular position, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment ruling in favor of the State, and the case was remanded to the district court for further consideration.
You can read more about the Court's decision in Solis v. State of Washington here. Navigating the murky waters of classifying employees can be tricky, especially where there are both state and federal rules at issue.
Featured Insights

Press Release
May 20, 2026
Hinshaw Releases America 250 Book Exploring Insurance's Role in Building the United States

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 19, 2026
OCC's Final Escrow-Interest Preemption Rules Bolster the Second Circuit’s Cantero Decision

Webinar
May 19, 2026
Scott Seaman Speaks on Making Decisions in Difficult Risk Environments

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
Key Takeaways from the 2026 MBA Legal Issues and Regulatory Compliance Conference

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 14, 2026
SCOTUS Confirms: Federal Courts Retain Power to Affirm or Vacate an Arbitration Decision

In The News
May 13, 2026
Hinshaw Contributes Chapters to “Wrongful-Death and Survival Actions” IICLE Handbook

In The News
May 12, 2026
Hinshaw GC Steve Puiszis Discusses Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in an AI Age

Event
May 12-13, 2026
Mitchel Chargo Speaks on the Rapidly Evolving Cannabis Industry

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
May 11, 2026
Tennessee Reaches Settlement with Mariner in Multistate UDAAP Enforcement Action

Press Release
May 11, 2026
Ali Degan Elected to the Fellows of the American Bar Foundation

Press Release
May 11, 2026
John Weedon Re-Elected to the Jacksonville Bar Association’s Board of Governors in 2026

