This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that Helix Energy Solutions Group did not pay Michael J. Hewitt on a salary basis under §602(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, so he was not exempt from overtime protections. Because §602(a) was not satisfied, §604(b) applies, extending overtime coverage to Hewitt.
Background and question before the Court
Michael J. Hewitt worked on an offshore oil rig from 2014‑2017, logging 84 hours per week and being paid a daily rate with no overtime compensation. The Court needed to decide whether Hewitt qualified as a “bona fide executive” exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, focusing on whether he was paid on a salary basis.
What each side argues
Helix Energy Solutions Group
According to Helix Energy Solutions Group, helix argued that Hewitt was exempt as a bona fide executive.
According to Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., according to Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., helix contended that the word “receives” in §602(a) only requires a paycheck no more often than once a week.
Michael J. Hewitt
Hewitt argued that he was not paid on a salary basis, challenging his executive status.
Paul D. Clement (for Hewitt)
According to Paul D. Clement, clement asserted that Hewitt earned over $200,000 a year, performed executive functions, and was guaranteed at least $963 each week, making him exempt under the highly compensated employee exemption (§601).
Mr. Sullivan (for Helix)
According to Mr. Sullivan, sullivan stated that the FLSA has long required a bona fide executive to be paid on a salary basis and that a daily‑rate employee is not paid on a salary basis.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether Hewitt was salaried.
Justice Jackson asked about the proper reading of the regulation and whether compensation amount alone determines applicability of §601.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh questioned the meaning of the phrase “or part” in §602.
Justice Kagan asked whether a client’s hourly billable rate or a check every hour was being referenced.
What the Court decided
The Court held that Helix did not pay Hewitt on a salary basis as defined in §602(a).
Because §602(a) was not satisfied, §604(b) applies to Hewitt, extending overtime protections.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies that workers paid a daily rate are not considered salaried, limiting the executive exemption and preserving overtime rights for many employees, including those earning under $100,000 annually.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 8292deb4c53c75218763-r1-dd8541ad60a210e5.pdforal argument transcript
- bc0c219ee92477c3d4f6-r1-867b8717e71a423b.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.