Federal Overtime After Lesko: Why Written Approval Matters
Federal employees are often told, “Just stay late—we’ll sort out the overtime later.” For years, many assumed that if management knew about the work and benefited from it, pay would follow. A recent en banc decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Lesko v. United States, makes that assumption far riskier for employees covered by Title 5.
At its core, Lesko reaffirmed that Title 5 overtime generally must be “officially ordered or approved” in the manner required by Office of Personnel Management regulations—and those regulations require written approval. The court held that OPM has the authority to impose that requirement, even if it feels disconnected from how work actually happens in understaffed offices.
Why Lesko Feels So Jarring to Working Feds
Outside federal service, overtime law often turns on whether an employer “suffered or permitted” the work to occur. If a supervisor knew the work was happening and accepted the benefit, pay usually follows. That concept lives comfortably in Fair Labor Standards Act cases. But Lesko dealt with Title 5 overtime, not FLSA overtime, and the court drew a hard line between the two systems.
For Title 5 employees, knowledge and benefit alone are no longer enough. Without proper authorization that satisfies OPM’s rule, an overtime claim becomes much harder to win.
The Single Most Important Takeaway
The most practical protection is simple but essential: get overtime authorization in writing. An email, a Teams message, or another saved communication confirming that work beyond the tour of duty is being directed can make the difference between getting paid and absorbing uncompensated labor. A brief, professional confirmation request is not insubordination; it is self-protection.
What Lesko Does Not Say
This decision does not mean employees automatically lose all rights if overtime was not preapproved in writing. It does mean that one common legal path has narrowed. Other pay systems, agency policies, collective bargaining agreements, and even retroactive approvals may still matter depending on the facts. Notably, the court acknowledged that supervisors can sometimes ratify overtime after the fact by approving it in writing later. That nuance matters for employees who already worked the hours and are being told, “We never approved that.”
A Word for Supervisors and HR Professionals
This ruling should not be treated as a loophole to deny pay. Quietly benefiting from extra labor and later hiding behind paperwork is a fast way to erode trust, invite grievances, and increase legal risk. Clear, timely authorization protects everyone—management included.
For federal employees navigating overtime pressures, calmer clarity is the goal: document directives, preserve records, and seek advice early rather than assuming things will “work themselves out.”
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.