My employer pays bi-weekly. They pay on Friday for the current past two weeks worked. If I happen to get overtime during the current weeks than they add the overtime to the next paycheck which isn't until another two weeks later which would be a whole other pay period, is this legal for my employer to make me wait until the next pay period to pay me overtime for the previous worked pay period? To the best of my knowledge, they are paying me time and a half for my overtime and not accruing it.

Here's the problem.

In order to pay you on Friday, they have to start working on the payroll at least the previous Tuesday, and possibly even earlier depending on the size of the company. They have to have figured wages, figured taxes, figured deductions, cut the checks, gotten them signed, transferred the money to the payroll account, gotten them to the various locations, and distributed to whomever hands the checks out, before you've even finished working the hours. They don't know when they start work on Tuesday that you're going to work overtime on Thursday. They can't START the process on Friday. And even if they could, what if you work overtime on Friday?

For this reason, when you're paid current, some hours have to be estimated and taken care of in the next paycheck. For this reason, I don't like paying current (though it is legal). But it's a logistical matter that simply does not allow for all overtime to be in the same check.

Thank you, cbg, for recognizing the payroll department's dilemma. ;)

And, OP, even if this weren't the case, the issue of when pay is legally due is left to the states to legislate, and Florida hasn't done so. Standard acceptable practice in the payroll world is no later than the following pay period, so your employer is within those guidelines.

. . . the issue of when pay is legally due is left to the states to legislate, and Florida hasn't done so.

cbg and Pattymd are absolutely correct in their analysis, and immenently reasonable.

I just want to add that in researching time of payment for a client, some courts seem to find an implicit requirement of prompt payment within the FLSA. It is certainly not contained within FLSA explicitly.


Here are a few case summaries from the West U.S. Code Annotated on this subject if anyone is interested:

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) implicitly requires that wages be paid promptly when due, although requirement of prompt payment does not impose strict liability on employer for every delay in payment, however slight or for whatever reason. Biggs v. Wilson, E.D.Cal.1991, 828 F.Supp. 774, affirmed 1 F.3d 1537, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 902, 510 U.S. 1081, 127 L.Ed.2d 94.

Annual pay period cannot be equitably adopted in light of basic policy of this chapter that minimum wage payments should be regularly and promptly made. Luther v. Z. Wilson, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1981, 528 F.Supp. 1166.

Though city's change in pay period and schedule for police officers did not have effect of evading Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) substantive minimum wage or overtime provisions, officers stated claim for violation of FLSA's prompt payment requirement based on contentions that change was not intended to be permanent, that it resulted in unreasonable delay in payment, and that it was motivated by something other than legitimate business purpose, namely by desire to transfer money from officers' pockets to city's coffers and to retaliate against police union for refusing to make concessions in contract negotiations. Rogers v. City of Troy, N.Y., C.A.2 (N.Y.) 1998, 148 F.3d 52.

Late payment, as well as nonpayment, of statutory minimum wages violates Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and triggers FLSA provisions concerning liquidated damages and prejudgment interest. Biggs v. Wilson, C.A.9 (Cal.) 1993, 1 F.3d 1537, certiorari denied 114 S.Ct. 902, 510 U.S. 1081, 127 L.Ed.2d 94.


State of California violated FLSA when it failed to pay minimum wages on time to state employees, even though its failure to do so was due to budget impasse and the lack of statutory authorization for payment of the funds. Caldman v. State of Cal., E.D.Cal.1994, 852 F.Supp. 898. Labor And Employment 2322


Employer and employee are free to contract for any regular pay period and, ordinarily, the relevant pay period for this chapter is determined from the actual pattern of payments adopted by the parties. Luther v. Z. Wilson, Inc., S.D.Ohio 1981, 528 F.Supp. 1166. Labor And Employment 2298;

Under this section and §§ 207 of this title, minimum wages and overtime compensation are to be paid promptly. Keen v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., N.D.Iowa 1945, 63 F.Supp. 120, affirmed 157 F.2d 310.

Employer was required to pay its employees at least minimum wage on payday, according to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Mathis v. About Your Smile, P.C., E.D.Pa.2002, 2002 WL 1878894, Unreported.