Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC

The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) generally requires employers to pay nonexempt employees overtime—usually one-and-one-half times their regular rate—for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek. But the statute contains exemptions, including one for qualifying computer employees. In Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a telecommunications company’s interactive voice response (“IVR”) project manager fell within that computer-employee exemption and therefore was not entitled to overtime under the FLSA.

The decision is a useful reminder that an employee’s job title, degree, and hands-on coding responsibilities do not necessarily decide whether the exemption applies. Instead, courts examine the employee’s actual primary duties.

Background: A Longtime IVR Project Manager Worked Extensive Hours

Loren Bennink worked on Cincinnati Bell’s contact-center technology for years, first as a contractor and then as a W-2 employee beginning in 2016.

His work centered on the company’s IVR system—the automated telephone platform that presents callers with menu options and routes them to the appropriate assistance or information.

According to the court, Bennink documented the existing and proposed IVR systems, helped determine how the system should connect with company databases, coordinated with other IT personnel, documented system changes, and assisted with major system integration projects.

Bennink alleged that his workload eventually required extremely long days—at times as many as 18 hours—particularly while he was helping integrate Hawaii Telecom’s contact-center operations after Cincinnati Bell acquired that company.

After leaving the company, Bennink sued, alleging that Cincinnati Bell violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime and breached an agreement to pay him $75 for every hour he worked.

The Central Legal Issue: Did the Computer Employee Exemption Apply?

The FLSA’s computer-employee exemption applies to certain employees whose primary duty includes the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs based on user or system design specifications.

For hourly-paid employees, the exemption also requires compensation of at least $27.63 per hour.

The parties agreed that Bennink’s pay exceeded that threshold, so the appellate court focused on whether his primary duties fit within the exemption.

Cincinnati Bell, as the employer asserting the exemption, bore the burden of proving that the exemption applied by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Sixth Circuit’s Analysis
The IVR Platform Was a Computer System

Bennink argued that he did not work on a computer system in the relevant sense, characterizing his role as the creation of “complicated flowcharts” while other employees performed the actual programming.

The Sixth Circuit disagreed. It concluded that the IVR platform was a complex computer system because it used programmed menus to route calls while drawing information from multiple databases and systems.

His Documentation, Design, and Development Work Was Central to the Job

The court found that Bennink’s IVR responsibilities included several statutory functions: documentation, design, and development.

His documentation did more than merely record information; it mapped how calls moved through the system and gave other personnel an understanding of how the system worked and how it could be changed.

The court also found that Bennink’s work gathering feedback from system users, determining the IVR’s structure, and proposing call flows constituted design and development.

Although Bennink did not personally carry out all programming and performed some project-management functions, the court concluded that his system-focused work was the principal or most important part of his job.

A Formal Computer Science Background Was Not Required

Bennink also emphasized that he lacked formal education or training in computer systems and coding.

The Sixth Circuit held that neither the statute nor the applicable regulations require a particular degree, job title, or formal credential.

Instead, the court concluded that Bennink’s experience demonstrated that he was capable of performing the exempt system-design, development, and documentation work.

The Court’s Decision

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Cincinnati Bell.

The court held that Bennink was an exempt computer employee under the FLSA and that the offer letter did not create an enforceable contract requiring payment at $75 per hour for overtime hours.

Because the computer-employee exemption applied, the court did not address Cincinnati Bell’s alternative arguments that Bennink also qualified for the administrative or highly compensated employee exemptions.

Takeaways for Employees and Employers

For employees

This case demonstrates that overtime eligibility does not always turn on whether an IT employee writes code, has a technical degree, or holds a traditionally technical title. The court focused on the real substance of Bennink’s work: whether his central responsibilities involved the design, development, and documentation of a computer system.

Employees questioning an exempt classification should preserve job descriptions, calendars, project records, communications, time records, and evidence showing their day-to-day duties—not merely their title. The FLSA inquiry examines how an employee actually spent working time and whether those activities legally fit an exemption.

For employers

Employers should ensure that FLSA classifications are tied to actual primary duties. An employee who provides routine technical support or follows predetermined procedures may present a different classification question from one who helps design system architecture, translates user needs into system specifications, and creates documentation that directs future development

The Bottom Line

Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell confirms that the computer-employee exemption can cover work beyond direct programming. Where an employee’s primary duties involve designing, developing, or documenting a complex computer system, the exemption may apply even if other staff handle coding and the employee lacks formal technical credentials.

Workers who believe they were improperly denied overtime should document their actual responsibilities and compensation practices. Employers should periodically review whether their exempt IT classifications remain supported by the work employees actually perform.

Click Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC to read the entire decision.