Ninth Circuit: Social Workers are not “Learned Professionals” Under FLSA and are Therefore not Exempt From Overtime Requirements
1 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.
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
Sep 18, 2026
Paris Glazer Named to Chicago Daily Law Bulletin’s 2026 40 Attorneys Under Forty

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 17, 2026
Federal and State Regulators Continue Crackdown on Junk Fees

Press Release
Sep 17, 2026
Defense Verdict Reduces $134 Million Demand to $2 Million in Catastrophic Motorcycle Injury Case

Insights for Insurers Alert
Sep 16, 2026
America 250: The Nation’s Unique Contributions to Insurance Coverage Law and Litigation

In The News
Sep 15, 2026
Lucy Wang Discusses the California Insurance Commissioner’s Role in Protecting Consumers

Press Release
Sep 10, 2026
Hinshaw Attorneys Recognized as 2027 Lexology Index Thought Leaders: USA

In The News
Sep 10, 2026
Nicholas Ajello and Gregory Emry Analyze FAA’s Proposed BVLOS Drone Regulations

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Sep 9, 2026
“Play Now, Arbitrate Later”—“Not So Fast,” Ninth Circuit Says

In The News
Sep 9, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Discusses “Patchwork” of Laws Targeting Personalized Pricing

Employment Law Observer
Sep 8, 2026
Five Workplace Issues Every Employer Should Address Before They Become a Costly Lawsuit

Press Release
Sep 8, 2026
Jim Sandy Appointed Chair of ABA Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Subcommittee

