Sections 6 (a) and 7 (a) of tbe Fair Standards of Labor Act provide a schedule of minimum wages and maximum hours for those employed in interstate commerce. There is no question tbat plaintiff was so employed or tbat bis evidence as to overtime work was sufficient to go to tbe jury. But defendant insists tbat under plaintiff’s own evidence, be should be regarded as employed in a “bona fide executive capacity” witbin tbe exemptive features of section 13, and therefore not entitled to overtime wages.
Section 13 authorizes tbe Administrator to define and delimit tbe terms used in tbe exemption clause, and acting under tbat authority, be issued regulations (October, 1940) defining tbe term “employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity” as follows:
“Tbe term 'employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity’ in section 13 (a) (1) of tbe Act shall mean any employee
“(A) whose primary duty consists of tbe management of tbe establishment in wbicb be is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof, and
“(B) who customarily and regularly directs tbe work of other employees therein, and
“(C) who has tbe authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations as to tbe hiring or firing and as to tbe advancement and promotion or any other change of status of other employees will be given particular weight, and
“(D) who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary powers, and
“(E) who is compensated for bis services on a salary basis at not less than $30 per week (exclusive of board, lodging, or other facilities), and
“(E) whose hours of work of tbe same nature as tbat performed by nonexempt employees do not exceed twenty per cent of tbe number of hours worked in tbe workweek by tbe nonexempt employees under bis direction; provided tbat tbis subsection (E) shall not apply in tbe case of an employee who is in sole charge of an independent establishment or a physically separated branch establishment.”
*96Our attention is called to tbe fact that paragraph (E) of this definition has been field invalid by some Federal District Courts whose decisions are cited in the brief; but the paragraph is inapplicable here since the plaintiff received more wages per week than the minimum — $30— fixed in the definition.
Upon careful examination we have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s evidence, taken in the light most favorable to him, sufficiently shows that he was in the management of a recognized department of the defendant’s establishment, that he customarily and regularly directed the work of others employed therein, that he had and exercised the authority to hire and fire other employees in that department, and in the performance of these duties and others customarily and regularly exercised substantial discretionary powers.
The proportion of time spent by plaintiff in what he designates as manual and clerical duties are conclusions of the witness. ¥e have no means of determining what time was spent in nonexempt employment, because the duty of supervision and management of his department— and the performance of that duty — appear to have been unbroken, except where, as a matter of convenience, plaintiff assisted in some work which was regularly in the routine of other employees. The clerical work alone, according to the evidence, was not sufficient to take him out of the definition of the Administrator as a percentage of performance of nonexempt services.
Perhaps we might have some concepts of a more expansive nature as to what an “executive” is or ought to be — of degree and importance, since we have come to associate that term with “big business” and worthwhile compensation. If the Administrator, official definer and delimiter of the term, had similar views, he failed to capture them within the web of his thesis. He has taken the more practical view that the definition and classification must be put on a functional basis, related to the business in which the employee is engaged, and the service he performs, which would make the importance of his position relative to the business in which he is employed.
Valid definitions within the delegated power speak with authority, and become the dictionary of the law.
We are led to the conclusion that the nature of plaintiff’s services, as disclosed in his evidence, brings him within the exemptive provisions of S. 13, as its terms are officially defined by administrative regulation, and that he is not entitled to recover.
The judgment of nonsuit is
Affirmed.