The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave a recent reminder to employers when deciding whether to classify employees as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Focus on what employees actually do, not labels, credentials, or compensation alone.

In the case of Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., LLC, No. 26-3150 (6th Cir. Oct. 29, 2026), decided on October 29, 2026, the court held that an employee does not need to write code or hold a computer science degree to qualify for the FLSA’s computer employee exemption. Rather, the employee’s job duties met the requirements of the FLSA’s computer employee exemption, and therefore the employer prevailed and Bennick’s claims for unpaid overtime were dismissed on summary judgment.

Background on FLSA and the Computer Employee Exemption

As most readers are aware, the FLSA requires that employers pay employees minimum wage and overtime, unless an exemption applies. At issue in the Bennick case was whether Bennick was properly classified as exempt under the “computer employee” exemption to the FLSA.

To qualify for the computer employee exemption, an employee must:

• Be compensated on either a salary or fee basis of at least $684 per week, or if paid by the hour, at least $27.63 per hour;
• Be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field; and
• Perform certain computer-related job tasks as their primary duty, such as the application of systems analyst techniques and procedures, designing or developing computer systems or programs or operating systems, or a combination of the aforementioned duties (this is a summary of the exemption’s requirements; see the text of the actual exemption here). 

Bennick worked on the employer’s interactive voice response system, which is the technology that routes callers through automated menus. He gathered user needs, mapped call flows, documented system changes, and helped shape how the system functioned.

The court held that Bennink’s work documenting and designing call flows qualified even though other employees performed the actual programming. Neither a particular job title nor formal technical education was required. The court also examined the job as a whole. Although Bennink performed project-management and coordination work, his system documentation, design, and development responsibilities were his most important duties. A primary duty need not consume the greatest share of an employee’s time.

The decision does not give employers a blanket exemption for technology workers. The court distinguished employees who substantively affect system design from those who install hardware, configure desktops, or follow specifications created by others, which would generally not be exempt tasks. The practical question is whether the employee helps determine how the system should work or merely implements predetermined instructions. If the former, then the employee has a good chance of being exempt under the computer employee exemption assuming all other requirements are met; if the latter, then the employee is likely non-exempt.

Practical steps for employers

Use this decision as a prompt to strengthen classification practices across the workforce:

• Audit actual duties. Interview managers and employees rather than relying solely on titles or job descriptions.
• Document the exemption rationale. For computer roles, preserve examples of system specifications, design decisions, and substantive technical documentation.
• Revisit evolving roles. Reassess classifications when responsibilities change, especially when design work shifts toward routine support or coordination.

Bottom line: Bennink supports a practical, duties-centered approach to exemption decisions. Employers should use that flexibility to classify accurately, not assume every well-paid employee who works with computers is exempt.