The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC, did not violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay overtime wages to former employee Loren Bennink. The court found that Bennink was classified as an exempt computer employee under the FLSA and that no valid employment contract existed between him and the company. This decision affects Bennink and potentially sets a precedent for similar cases involving employee classifications.

The case, Loren Bennink v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC, was filed in the Southern District of Ohio and later appealed to the Sixth Circuit under docket number 26-3150. The ruling was issued on October 29, 2026, by a panel of judges including Julia Smith Gibbons, Joan L. Larsen, and Kevin G. Ritz.

Background

Loren Bennink worked for Cincinnati Bell in various capacities, starting as an independent contractor and later becoming a full-time employee in 2016. His role involved significant responsibilities related to the development and management of the company's interactive voice response (IVR) system, which is a technology that automates customer service calls. Bennink claimed that he often worked long hours, exceeding forty hours per week, but was not compensated for overtime as required by the FLSA.

In his lawsuit, Bennink alleged that Cincinnati Bell failed to pay him overtime wages and breached an employment contract by not compensating him at a rate of $75 per hour for all hours worked. Cincinnati Bell countered that Bennink was exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements due to his role as a computer employee and argued that no valid contract existed between the parties.

The Ruling

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Cincinnati Bell. The court ruled that Bennink qualified as an exempt computer employee under the FLSA. The opinion stated, "Cincinnati Bell has met its burden to show that Bennink’s responsibilities were intimately intertwined with the design, development, and documentation of the IVR system, making him an exempt computer employee." The court emphasized that Bennink's primary duties involved significant technical responsibilities related to the IVR system, which fell under the exemption criteria outlined in the FLSA.

Furthermore, the court addressed Bennink's claim regarding the alleged breach of contract. It stated, "To find that the offer letter itself constituted a valid contract here, where one party clearly stated that it did not intend to enter into a contract and the other party admits to understanding that lack of intent, would require us to ignore the fundamentals of contract law." The court concluded that Bennink could not prove a valid contract existed, as the offer letter explicitly stated it did not constitute a contract.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for both employees and employers regarding the classification of workers under the FLSA. The court's decision reinforces the interpretation of the computer employee exemption, which allows certain employees in technical roles to be exempt from overtime pay requirements. This may influence how companies classify their employees and manage compensation practices, particularly in the technology sector.

For Bennink, the ruling means he will not receive the overtime pay he sought, and it sets a precedent that could affect other employees in similar positions who may also be classified as exempt under the FLSA. The decision highlights the importance of clear communication and documentation in employment agreements, especially regarding compensation and job classifications.

What's Next

As of now, there is no indication that Bennink plans to appeal the decision further. The court's ruling stands, and there are no related cases pending that could affect this outcome. However, the implications of this ruling may lead to further discussions and potential changes in how employment contracts are structured in the future.