Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—EXEMPTIONS—6th Cir.: IT worker found to be overtime-exempt computer employee under the FLSA, (Oct 30, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee’s responsibilities concerning documentation, design, and development of the IVR system were the “main” or “most important” part of his job, making them his “primary duty.”

Cincinnati Bell met its burden to show that an IT employee’s responsibilities were intimately intertwined with the design, development, and documentation of an IVR system, making him an exempt computer employee, ruled the Sixth Circuit. The employee claimed that the employer failed to pay him overtime wages, violating the FLSA and breaching its contract with him. Focusing on his primary duty, the appeals court determined that many of his responsibilities regarding the IVR system fell within several of the duties described in 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17)(B), namely, “documentation,” “design,” and “development.” Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, concluding that the employee was exempt from FLSA overtime (Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC, No. 26-3150 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026)).

Employment relationship. The employee had a long history with Cincinnati Bell. From 2005 to 2008, he worked at Startek, which provides contact center services to a variety of customers and industries. When Cincinnati Bell sought to outsource its contact center operations, the employee was involved in preparing Startek’s proposal.

In 2009, as the two companies finally agreed to a deal, he transitioned into an independent contractor role with Startek as an “IT Consultant.” In this capacity, he took on “developing” the interactive voice response technology (IVR) system for Cincinnati Bell as the “point IT project manager.”

Cincinnati Bell eventually decided to bring its contact center operations in-house, and the employee worked on that transition. In May 2016, Cincinnati Bell offered to bring him on as a W-2 employee. His offer letter described him as a “Contingency 3—IT” employee—a classification the company considers exempt from FLSA coverage under that statute’s computer employee exemption. The employee signed the offer and declined health insurance. He was subsequently paid $6,000 per pay period, i.e., $3,000 weekly, for almost the entirety of his time with Cincinnati Bell.

The employee stayed in this role for several years. He worked across departments to determine if updates to the IVR system could be made to enhance the customer experience. He communicated with other IT experts to ensure the changes were enacted. And he documented any changes made to the system. When Cincinnati Bell contracted with another IT service provider, the employee was the point of contact for that relationship.

Exemptions. The employee eventually left Cincinnati Bell in June 2023 and later sued the employer. He alleged that the company (1) violated the FLSA by failing to pay him overtime wages for hours worked beyond 40 in a given week, and (2) breached his employment contract by failing to pay him $75 per hour for all hours worked, including those above 40 per week. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Cincinnati Bell argued that the employee was exempt from FLSA coverage either as a computer employee, an administrative employee, or a highly compensated employee.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Bell, finding that the employee was exempt from FLSA coverage as a “computer employee” under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17) and no contract between the parties existed. The employee appealed.

FLSA claim. The FLSA exempts from the statute’s overtime protections “any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker” with one of the specified “primary dut[ies].” In particular, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17)(B) exempts employees who have the primary duty of “design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs... based on and related to user or system design specifications.” Computer employees “who [are] compensated on an hourly basis” must be “compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour” to be exempt.

Because the parties agreed that the employee was paid at a rate well over the statutorily required hourly rate of $27.63, the appeals court focused on the responsibilities targeted by the statute.

Primary duty. In 1996, Congress enacted Section 213(a)(17) which singled out computer employees instead of lumping them in with other professionals. Congress adopted the list of relevant duties from previous Department of Labor regulations—but omitted the language about education, independent judgment, and highly specialized skills. In light of this background the appeals court focused on the employee’s primary duty.

The Department of Labor determines an employee’s “primary duty” by looking for those tasks and responsibilities that are the “principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs,” based on “the character of the employee’s job as a whole.”

Section 213(a)(17)(B) requires that the relevant responsibilities—“design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification”—concern “computer systems or programs.” Here, much of the employee’s work revolved around Cincinnati Bell’s IVR system. The appeals court had little trouble concluding that an IVR system is a “computer system or program.” It automatically routes a user’s call based on a programmed menu, pulling in information from various databases and other systems.

Many of the employee’s responsibilities regarding the IVR system fell within several of the duties described in 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(17)(B), namely, “documentation,” “design,” and “development.” He extensively documented the IVR system, mapping out where and how the system routed callers based on their needs. Further, he worked in collaboration with others in IT, updating the map to reflect changes made by programmers or giving the programmers direction on what should be updated to make the system more effective. The employee’s documentation responsibilities also bled over into “design” and “development.”

On this record, the employee’s responsibilities concerning documentation, design, and development of the IVR system were the “main” or “most important” part of his job, making them his “primary duty.”

Lack of formal training. Finally, the appeals court rejected the employee’s attempt to downplay his responsibilities or skills based on the fact that he had no formal training in computer systems or coding. The statute’s lack of an explicit educational requirement “reflects the reality that someone [could] learn[] such skills through work experience or self-study.” The employee’s own descriptions of his work made clear that his career has brought him extensive insight into what makes an IVR system effective.

Accordingly, Cincinnati Bell met its burden to show that the employee’s responsibilities were intimately intertwined with the design, development, and documentation of the IVR system, making him an exempt computer employee.

The case is No. 26-3150.

Judge: Ritz, K.

Attorneys: Brian J. Butler (The Butler Trial Firm) for Loren Bennink. Neal Shah (FBT Gibbons) for Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC.

Companies: Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC

MainStory: TopStory WageHour Exemptions Overtime KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews