Wage and Hour Law Update : Wage & Hour Lawyer & Attorney : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Minimum Wage, Overtime & Service Contracts

Recently, a federal judge in Minnesota analyzed whether the confounding administrative exemption applies to investigators employed by a “full-service investigative firm specializing in insurance defense investigations.” Ahle v. Veracity Research Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88250 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2010). In an opinion which addressed numerous other issues in the litigation, including rejecting the applicability of two other FLSA exemptions to the investigators (outside sales and motor carrier), Judge Ann Montgomery concluded that, while the investigators did perform work relating to the general business operations of Veracity and its customers (meeting the first prong of the administrative exemption test), they did not exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment in performing that work, and thus could not qualify for the exemption.

Relying on the Seventh Circuit’s analysis in Roe-Midgett v. CC Services, Inc., 512 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2008), Judge Montgomery observed that even though the plaintiff investigators “produced” Veracity’s product (the investigations themselves), potentially making them “production” workers as opposed to administrative workers, the administrative/production dichotomy was of little use in analyzing a service business such as defendant’s, and, more importantly:

the core business function of Veracity's clients is not to produce investigations. For example, Veracity's insurance company clients are in the business of writing and selling insurance policies. The duty of conducting claims investigations is merely ancillary to producing and selling insurance policies, and thus falls on the administrative side of the "administrative-production dichotomy”

Ahle, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88250 at * 11 citing Roe-Midgett, 512 F.3d at 872.

Judge Montgomery then turned to the final prong of the analysis: whether the investigators exercised discretion and independent judgment under the Department of Labor regulation 29 C.F.R. § 541.202. Analyzing Veracity’s investigators in light of previous FLSA decisions concerning insurance industry investigations, the Court ruled that no material issue of fact existed as to the presence of discretion and independent judgment because, “(1) Veracity's written guidelines explain in great detail how claims investigators should conduct an investigation, (2) the claims investigators are required to obtain all the facts regardless of their impact, and (3) the claims investigators do not include their own opinions, conclusions, or recommendations regarding the decision whether to pay or deny the claim.” This absence of independent analysis rendered the investigators employees who simply made “choices among established techniques, procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources." Thus, they could not qualify for the administrative exemption. 

The administrative exemption is a persistent source of confusion, and litigation. Employers must apply its multiple-pronged exemption test with care and ensure exercise of sufficient discretion and independent judgment as to matters of significance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The “salary basis” test is by far the most straightforward component of the white collar overtime exemptions, requiring only a fixed salary of $455/week (subject to state law) paid in compliance with the requirements of 29 CFR § 541.602. However, an employer’s use of an unusual compensation or bonus structure can still result in allegations that this requirement is not met. Such claims can arise even when the weekly payment in question far exceeds the minimum salary requirement. This was the nature of the Plaintiffs’ unsuccessful attempt to assert that the employer failed to satisfy the salary basis requirement in Bell v. Callaway, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17981 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2010).[1]

In Callaway, the employer hired approximately 100 “bookkeeper/accountants” to assist Callaway in the restatement of a single company’s books (HealthSouth). Their compensation arrangement is summarized below:

Plaintiffs received a guaranteed weekly salary of $1600 or more that did not depend  on the quality or quantity of the work performed. This weekly salary was reduced by one-fifth of the weekly salary for every full day a Plaintiff took off from work for personal reasons during the normal workweek without substituting Paid Time Off ("PTO") [Ed.: a lawful deduction under 541.602]. But, a Plaintiff could work fewer than eight hours during any given workday without any reduction in his or her weekly salary. Second, Plaintiffs were eligible to receive additional incentive compensation (a "bonus") paid at a straight-time hourly rate based on the cumulative number of billable hours that Plaintiffs worked. Any bonus to be awarded was determined based on how many additional hours over forty a Plaintiff worked in a given week minus any "deficit" hours a Plaintiff had accumulated in past weeks. For example, if a Plaintiff worked seven and not eight hours on each regularly-scheduled workday in a given week, thus totaling 35 hours of work, he or she still earned the full predetermined weekly salary, but would not earn a bonus in a subsequent week until he or she made up the bonus-hour deficit of five hours and then worked more than 40 hours in a given week.

Id. at * 1-2. 

The Eleventh Circuit, affirming the district court, rejected Plaintiffs’ claim that they were “not paid on a salary basis because the amount of their bonuses fluctuated based on the cumulative number of hours worked.” Id. at * 4. The Court noted the DOL’s regulation which allows an employer to “provide an exempt employee with additional compensation without losing the exemption or violating the salary basis requirement, if the employment arrangement also includes a guarantee of at least the minimum weekly-required amount paid on a salary basis.” Id. at * 5 citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(a). Because the salary basis was met, exempt status was preserved, and the additional compensation was of no moment. The fact that the bonus was based on hours worked and subject to adjustment based on hours worked was irrelevant to the court’s analysis of salary basis compliance.

While Callaway is in line with other Circuit decisions addressing similar plans (See e.g. Havey v. Homebound Mortg., Inc., 547 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008)(the fact that [plaintiff’s] overall compensation for quarter could be decreased due to quality errors does not render [plaintiff] a non-salaried employee if, under the employer's policy, the adjustments do not affect a "predetermined amount" [compliant with the salary basis test]), employers devising exempt compensation plans must beware of compensation arrangements that could result in assertions that rather than applying a proper FLSA exemption, they are attempting to circumvent the Act’s overtime requirement. See generallyAdams v. Department of Juvenile Justice, 143 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1998).

This decision points out the need for all employers to ensure that compensation programs for white collar-exempt employees are in full compliance with the salary basis requirements of the FLSA. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The subject of many FLSA actions is store managers and whether they are properly classified as exempt employees. In a recent victory for the employer community, Judge Glenn Suddaby of the Northern District of New York held as a matter of law that Express Mart properly classified its store manager in Cato, New York as exempt. Guinup v. Petr-All Petroleum Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86280 (N.D.N.Y Aug. 23, 2010).

Plaintiff Guinup was the store manager for Store 360, a combination convenience store and gas station. In her claim for overtime, she did not dispute that three of the four requirements for the executive exemption were met: namely, that she; 1) was paid on a salary basis and earned at least $455 per week; 2) customarily and regularly directed the work of two or more employees; and 3) had the authority to hire or fire employee or in the alternative make recommendations as to hiring and firing which received particular weight. Id. at * 17-18. Rather, Plaintiff argued that as a store manager she did not meet the requirement that her “primary duty [be] management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof.” Id. citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.100. 

The Court then reviewed the four factors utilized to determine whether an employee’s primary duty is management: “[1] the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; [2] the amount of time spent performing exempt work; [3] the employee's relative freedom from direct supervision; and [4] the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.” Id. In holding that each factor militated in favor of exempt status  the Court observed that Plaintiff’s duties included:

interviewing and hiring new employees, scheduling, training, writing performance evaluations, reporting employee and customer injuries to corporate, discussing sales performance and promotions with corporate, conducting surveys of competitors' gas prices and convenience store business, and controlling "shrink." Plaintiff was also responsible for making recommendations to corporate regarding product ordering and pricing, new hire pay rates, employee discipline and termination, and certain Store 360 security measures. Furthermore, Plaintiff accepted phone calls at home from her subordinates at Store 360 regarding incidents that arose at Store 360 when she was not working.

Id. at * 21. 

Based on these duties, the Court observed that “Store 360 could not have operated successfully unless Plaintiff performed her managerial functions.” As the most senior on-site employee, the Court found she was relatively free from supervision on a day-to-day basis even if she had an “active” Area Supervisor because, inter alia, the Area Supervisor was responsible for ten stores. Finally, based on the Court’s estimate of the compensation of Plaintiff’s assistant manager, Plaintiff was paid approximately 31.7% more than that employee, her highest-ranking subordinate.

While the Guinup decision is favorable to employers, the applicability of the executive exemption continues to be a fact-sensitive, highly technical analysis with divergent court opinions. Whenever a managerial employee is not the highest ranking on-site employee (as Guinup was), particular care must be taken in assessing applicability of the exemption.  And even if the employee is the highest rank on-site there must be significant exercise of managerial duties. All retail employers must focus on this issue.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a much-awaited decision, earlier this week  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a New York District Court and held that pharmaceutical sales representatives are not exempt outside sales or administrative employees.  In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., No. 09-0437-cv, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13708 (2d Cir. July 6, 2010). The Court concurred with and deferred to the position of the U.S. Secretary of Labor, who appeared as amicus curiae or “friend of the court” at the appellate stage, and stated that  “the Secretary of Labor’s interpretations of her regulations are entitled to “‘controlling’ deference unless those interpretations are ‘plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.’”   In essence, the Second Circuit held that the representatives do not meet the outside sales exemption because “where [an] employee promotes a pharmaceutical product to a physician but can transfer to the physician nothing more than free samples and cannot lawfully transfer ownership of any quantity of the drug in exchange for anything of value, cannot lawfully take an order for its purchase, and cannot lawfully even obtain from the physician a binding commitment to prescribe it[,] . . . it is not plainly erroneous to conclude that the employee has not in any sense, within the meaning of the statute or the regulations, made a sale.” In a similarly narrow interpretation of the FLSA, the Second Circuit, again deferring to the Secretary’s view, held that the representatives’ duties do not demonstrate the necessary exercise of independent discretion and judgment as to matters of significance for application of the administrative exemption, and performance of those duties required only skills gained through training

A petition for review likely will follow and the scope of the exemptions may need to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, in light of conflicting authority including the Third Circuit’s contrary decision applying the administrative exemption to pharmaceutical sales representatives.  See Smith v. Johnson & Johnson, 593 F.3d 280 (3d Cir. 2010)

For a more detailed analysis of the Second Circuit’s decision, click here. 

[UPDATE].  On July 19, 2010, another district court within the Third Circuit relied on the Johnson & Johnson decision to hold that pharmaceutical sales representatives qualify for the administrative exemption.  Jackson v. Alpharma, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72435 (D.N.J. July 19, 2010).  The ever-growing and sharply divided body of authority regarding applicability of the administrative exemption in the pharmaceutical industry make In Re Novartis a candidate for Supreme Court review.  We will continue to monitor developments in the case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One commonly held misconception in wage-and-hour law is that all investment professionals in the financial industry are categorically exempt from overtime pay. In a decision contrary to such assumption, Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York recently denied summary judgment to a boutique investment bank as to the exempt status of a financial analyst, and conditionally certified a class of similarly situated financial analysts, permitting the Plaintiff to invite them to join the case. Henderson v. Transp. Group, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66109 (S.D.N.Y., Jul. 1, 2010).

As a financial analyst, Plaintiff Henderson worked as the junior member of an investment team consisting of financial analysts, associates and vice presidents. Financial analysts, although the junior members of the bank’s deal teams, participated in all major tasks, including “(1) making telephone calls and sending emails to prospective investors in order to market transactions, (2) assisting in the development of financial models using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, and (3) developing term sheets to finalize a deal.” Henderson received a starting salary of $35,000 per year, sufficient to satisfy the “salary basis” prong of the exempt status test.

The Court acknowledged throughout the opinion that these tasks could give rise to the requisite discretion and independent judgment necessary to qualify for the administrative exemption, but denied the motion based on the bank’s failure to provide specific evidence of how financial analysts exercised discretion in carrying out these tasks. The Court wrote:

“The defendants have not, however, submitted evidence describing the specific tasks performed in providing that support and assistance and in creating term sheets. Similarly, with respect to financial modeling, the defendants' witness opines that ‘[p]utting together such a file is a sophisticated and dynamic process changing frequently in reaction to market and investor demand.’ But the witness does not describe, for example, what, if any, alternatives, variables, or considerations must be weighed to create or apply the model, how an analyst is expected to react to "market and investor demand," or what authority analysts possess to decide any matter of significance.”

Because this evidence of the nature and extent of the analysts’ discretion was lacking, the court denied summary judgment. This decision is consistent with other authority within the Circuit finding summary judgment inappropriate in applying the administrative exemption to analysts. See e.g. DiFilippo v. Barclays Capital, Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)(denying summary judgment as to applicability of administrative exemption to Government Clearance Analysts). 

Henderson is the most recent in a series of decisions pointing out concerns with a uniform exempt classification of financial services employees. Industry employers should review their current classifications of financial professionals as exempt or non-exempt as litigation of classification issues in the industry is expected to continue. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Litigation regarding what constitutes a “retail or service establishment,” under the “7(i)” or “retail sales” exemption continues. We recently reported a district court decision applying the exemption to employees selling precious metals. See La Parne v. Monex Deposit Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59768 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2010).  Just a couple of months later, another district court analyzed the applicability of the exemption, this time to a company that provides window washing services primarily to commercial high rise buildings that are paid for by a management company, not the individual tenants. Alvarado v. Corporate Cleaning Service, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62378 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2010).

The Court explained that to fall within the definition of a retail or service establishment, two requirements must be met: (1) the establishment cannot earn more than 75% of its revenue from goods or services that are provided for resale; and (2) it must be recognized as retail in the particular industry. Plaintiffs argued the window washing services were resold (and not retail) because the defendant did not contract directly with the commercial or residential tenants to provide the service, but instead, with management companies, who then recovered the cost of such work either through rent, property management fees, or assessments. Therefore, the services were bought by the management company and then resold to the tenants.  The Court rejected this assertion, and held the building management companies were “merely conduits,” or agents facilitating the purchase of window washing services, not middlemen reselling window washing services. 

The Court also found the services were “recognized as retail in the industry” because they were sold to the general public (even though most of their customers were commercial clients, not residential clients, rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the exemption only applies to residential sales); the services met the “everyday needs of the community”; the services were provided at the end of the stream of distribution; and the defendant did not engage in manufacturing. The Court also held the mere fact the services were sold to corporate accounts with multiple buildings (as opposed to individual owners or those with a single building), did not transform the sale to a “wholesale” transaction. The Court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that providing proposals to customers estimating the cost of the services were not “retail” transactions, finding such proposals are not akin to competitive bidding (which Department of Labor regulations state are not recognized as retail).

Nevertheless, despite holding plaintiffs were employed by a “retail or service establishment,” the Court denied summary judgment to the employer finding a question of fact existed whether plaintiffs satisfied another requirement necessary to establish the exemption—being paid more than 50% in commissions. Plaintiffs were paid using a point system, whereby they were compensated based on the number of jobs completed. Each job was assigned a number of points based on the number of windows washed. Thus, the quicker and more efficiently the plaintiffs worked, the more they earned per hour.  The Court held a commission exists when there is some relationship or correlation between compensation paid to the employees and the amount charged to the customers. The court found questions of fact remained regarding whether a true nexus existed between pay received and the amount charged to the customer based on evidence produced by the plaintiffs that on occasion, the labor cost charged to a customer did not fluctuate based on the number of points.   

Employers relying on the 7(i) exemption under federal law should review the relevant regulations and cases to ensure that the business qualifies as a “retail or service establishment” and that the compensation it provides is a “commission” as defined in the case law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a case involving retailer Dollar General, another federal judge has refused to hold as a matter of law that a retail store manager is an overtime-exempt “executive” for purposes of the FLSA.  Judge James Jones denied summary judgment to Dollar General in Hale v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62584 (W.D. Va. June 23, 2010) based upon his “fact-intensive inquiry as to each prong of the five-factor [exemption] test.”  Id. at * 8. 

Plaintiff Hale had served as a full-time clerk and then an assistant store manager before her promotion to store manager.  Even though the parties agreed that as store manager Hale satisfied the salary basis test for exemption, and that “her work included the regular direction of two or more employees,” Plaintiff testified that she spent only ten percent of her time – six hours per week – on managerial tasks and the remainder of her time “performing menial labor: cleaning restrooms, scrubbing floors, checking out customers, and stocking shelves.” Id. at * 9. She further claimed that Dollar General’s policy of limiting her quota of labor hours for non-exempt employees forced her to run the store by herself or with a skeleton crew a large percentage of the time.

Consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s similar decision in Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2008), the Court determined that “[b]ased upon the applicable five-prong test, a reasonable juror could determine that Hale's primary duty was not management.”  This test examines: (1) "the amount of time spent in performance of  [*6] managerial duties"; (2) "the relative importance of the managerial duties as compared with other types of duties," (3) "the frequency with which the employee exercises discretionary powers"; (4) "his relative freedom from supervision"; and (5) the relationship between the employee's "salary and the wages paid other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the supervisor." Id at * 5-6 citing Morgan.  On this last issue, the Court observed that based on Plaintiff’s testimony that she worked 60-70 hours per week, a factual question existed as to whether the “effective rate” at which she was paid was actually less than that paid to the non-exempt employees who reported to her.

This highly technical attack on the use of the executive exemption in retail stores has divided courts, but highlights both the technical nature of the exemption and the need to ensure that for purposes of the FLSA an exempt “executive’s” primary duty is management and that such primary duty is reflected by documents such as evaluations and disciplinary notices.

[UPDATE]  On July 8, 2010 a second district judge echoed the reasoning in Hale, denying Dollar General’s motion for summary judgment in another misclassification case brought by a store manager in Missouri.  Kanatzer v. Dolgencorp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67798 (E.D. Mo. July 8, 2010).  In Kanatzer, the judge found material issues of fact as to all four factors set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Fair Labor Standards Act contains an exemption from overtime for employees of a “retail or service establishment” who earn at least 1.5 the minimum wage for all hours worked and more than 50% of their compensation from commissions. This exemption is often referred to as the “retail sales exemption” or “7(i) exemption,” referencing the section in which it is codified. Often the difficulty in applying the exemption lies with determining which establishments fall within the definition of a “retail or service establishment” and which do not. Department of Labor regulations provide a long list of retail non-retail establishments, but several courts have noted the list does not provide any rationale for distinguishing retail and non-retail and is of limited assistance. See e.g., Martin v. The Refrigeration School, Inc., 968 F.2d 3, 7 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Recently, a California District Court was faced with the question of whether account executives responsible for selling precious metals (e.g., gold and platinum) to customers via phone were employed by a “retail or service establishment,” and thus exempt from overtime under the 7(i) exemption.  Parne v. Monex Deposit Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 59768.  Relying on the definition of a “retail or service establishment” contained in the 13(a)(2) retail and service exemption [now repealed], the Court explained a retail or service establishment is one that (1) does not earn more than 75% of its revenue from goods or services that are provided for resale; and (2) is recognized as retail in the particular industry. 

In applying this definition, the Court first held that even though customers typically bought metals for investment purposes with the ultimate goal of reselling them for a profit (some customers did not even take possession of the metal), the precious metals were not goods provided for “resale,” as contemplated by the statute, because the metals were not sold with the understanding the metals would be immediately resold. Second, despite competing evidence regarding whether the industry viewed the Defendant as a retail seller (plaintiffs argued the Defendant was similar to a brokerage house), the Court held that summary judgment was still proper because the Defendant satisfied the standard courts have used in determining whether a particular establishment is “recognized as retail”—it sold goods to the general public; it did not take part in the manufacturing process; it provided a product that served the everyday needs of the community; and, it sold goods at the end of the stream of distribution. The factor that presented a “close[] question,” according to the Court, was whether selling precious metals served the “everyday needs of the community”. After noting that cases lack a unified approach in answering this question, the Court held “everyday needs” means “basic” or “integral” needs of members in the community, and collecting and investing metals fell within this standard.

As wage and hour cases continue to be an active area of litigation, the different prerequisites for application of the 7(i) exemption, including which services and goods also meet the “basic” or “integral” needs of the community, will likely continue to be litigated.  Before utilizing the exemptions, employers relying on the 7(i) exemption, should review the relevant regulations and case law to ensure that their business qualifies as a “retail or service establishment”.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In light of other case law, a recent pro-employer decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that a salaried dispatcher for a crane rental company qualified as an exempt administrative employee, adds credence to a question often asked by legal and human resources professionals: is the administrative exemption in the eye of the beholder? Rock v. Ray Anthony Int'l, LLC, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10775 (11th Cir. Fla. May 26, 2010).

At the trial court level, the district court found that Rock’s duties as dispatcher included “customer communication, choosing the appropriate crane for specific jobs, assigning operators to cranes, overseeing other employees, preparing and reviewing job tickets, and maintaining the crane rental schedule . . . He was also responsible for selecting the type of materials, supplies, machinery, equipment, and tools that were needed to meet the customers' needs.” Id. at * 5-6. The trial court concluded that these duties “related to servicing or running [defendant’s] general business operations”, rendering him eligible for the administrative exemption. Id. at * 6.

On appeal, Rock argued that the recently issued DOL Administrative Interpretation regarding loan officers (discussed here), which opined that employees performing sales work generally are engaged in “production” and not eligible for classification as exempt “administrative” employees, supported a non-exempt finding, as his responsibilities were “more akin to sales and retail.”

The Eleventh Circuit, relying on precedent within the Circuit, observed that “even when employees engage in sales, their duties are administrative if the majority of their time is spent advising customers, hiring and training staff, determining staff pay, and delegating matters to staff.” Id. at * 9 citing Hogan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 361 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. 2004). Because the trial court found that Rock’s duties “went beyond mere sales” and included management of the crane division, the administrative classification was upheld.  Id.

Rock is welcome news for employers within the 11^th Circuit’s purview of Florida, Georgia and Alabama. However, the general lack of clarity as to what constitutes “administrative” work is highlighted when the Rock decision is juxtaposed with a recent decision involving dispatchers issued by a New York federal court. In Iaria v. Metro Fuel Oil Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6844 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2009), the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment as to its classification of a dispatcher as an exempt administrative employees. In part, the Court’s decision in Iaria was premised on crediting the plaintiffs’ testimony that their duties did not involve supervisory or management responsibilities, but were limited to “monitoring drivers' deliveries, responding to drivers' problems, handling some customer service calls, routing, entering data in the computers, and checking the drivers' logs.” Id. at * 3.  The Court stated that these dispatcher plaintiffs’ “duties relate more directly to the service and product that [defendant] provides -- the delivery of fuel for heating -- than they do to servicing the business.” Id. at * 11.   

Employers utilizing the administrative exemption, especially with sales and quasi-sales position, must closely review the DOL’s current position and the applicable law in their Circuit, as well as applicable state law, to ensure understanding of all potential risks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FLSA’s administrative exemption requires the party claiming exemption to establish that the employee was engaged in “administrative” work, as opposed to “production” work (the so-called administrative/production dichotomy). Determining whether an employee meets the administrative exemption can be challenging.   This determination is even more difficult in white-collar industries, where unlike in manufacturing, it is not so easy to differentiate between production and administrative work.

In 2009, the Second Circuit reversed a District Court and held an underwriter for Chase J.P. Morgan did not meet the administrative exemption since the employee “produced” the bank’s product, and did not service the business (like an accountant, Information Technology professional or human resources professional).   The Supreme Court yesterday declined to review the SecondCircuit’s decision.   Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529, 536 (2d Cir. 2009) cert denied 559 U.S. ___ (Supreme Court Case No. 09-1160, May 3, 2010). Therefore, in the Second Circuit white-collar employers need to evaluate the position in light of this decision before classifying employees as exempt administrators. This concern is underscored by the fact that the Second Circuit’s decision supports an argument that the exercise of independent discretion and judgment is not relevant to this analysis – if the employee is deemed to perform production work, a Court need not reach the question of the existence or lack of discretion and independent judgment.

This is a disappointing decision for employers hoping that the high court would grant cert and reverse Davis by holding that: 1) the District Court’s determination that the exemption applied in the case at bar was the proper one; and 2) the administrative/production dichotomy is of “limited assistance outside the manufacturing context.” Savage v. Unite Here, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32219 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2008).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 31, Magistrate Judge John Tunheim of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota issued a lengthy opinion in several consolidated FLSA actions brought by a group of securities brokers who alleged they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA.  In re Rbc Dain Rauscher Overtime Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32413 (D. Minn. March 31, 2010).  The opinion addresses several issues relevant to financial services industry employers including:

• The applicability of the “learned professional exemption – the Court denied summary judgment to the Defendant on this issue as to one broker because based on the record the Court could not determine that the knowledge utilized by the broker (who possessed a Series 7 license and an MBA) to perform his job was customarily acquired via academic instruction.  Id. at * 30-36;

• Whether a “non-forgivable” but recoverable draw satisfies the salary basis payment requirement - the Court held that a non-forgivable but recoverable draw that never fell below the minimum salary required for exemption ($455 per week under federal law) satisfied the salary basis, even though the draw was reconciled in calculating commissions.  Id. at * 37-43.  In reaching this finding the Court cited a United States Department of Labor opinion letter issued by then-Wage and Hour Administrator and current Jackson Lewis partner and head of the Jackson Lewis Wage and Hour Practice Group, Paul DeCamp; and

• Impact of the “Highly Compensated” exemption test – the Court held that brokers who met the “highly compensated” threshold set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 (i.e., payment of the salary basis minimum and total compensation of at least $100,000/year) were exempt, as they customarily and regularly performed exempt administrative duties by providing financial advice and analysis.  Id. at * 86-105.

In re RBC serves as a valuable primer for financial services firms seeking to identify and review the exemption issues that often arise in the financial services industry.  Unfortunately, the industry is under attack despite the high levels of compensation received by many industry employees. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In yet another wage-and-hour decision with the potential to disrupt longstanding practices within an industry, a federal court in Florida has ruled that the FLSA’s “learned professional” exemption does not apply to a group of caseworkers providing child protection services for an state-authorized agency. Talbott, et al v. Lakeview Center, 06-cv-378 (N.D. Fla. February 2, 2010). The learned professional exemption requires that:

• An employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;

• The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and

• The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.

In Talbott, Plaintiffs were caseworkers in two different job titles who provided counseling services to families under the supervision of their “casework counselor supervisor.” The Plaintiffs alleged that while many of them held a degree related to social work, their actual job did not require them to use that degree or exercise any discretion or judgment. Specifically, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant’s “six- to eight-week . . . training course provided them with the knowledge necessary to perform their jobs” and accordingly the job requirements were “insufficient to meet the learned professional exemption’s requirement of advanced knowledge.” The Court agreed. It observed that while the Defendant had put forth evidence that it required a combination of education and experience to obtain the job, it was clear to the Court that “[t]he type of knowledge necessary to perform the duties . . . is gained by the employee in Lakeview’s training course.” The Court even found the violation to be willful and based on such finding extended the liability period to 3 years and awarded 100% liquidated damages.

Further (and economically devastating to the Defendant), the court concluded based on evidence in the record (including listing fixed hours in the job posting for the position and invoking an informal “flex time” concept with the employees to address circumstances where their hours would exceed 40) that the “contract” of employment with the Plaintiffs had been for 40 hours of work per week, and therefore Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime based on time and half their regular rate of pay based on a 40 hour workweek (i.e, 1.5 times (their weekly salary divided 40) times hours worked in excess of 40 in the week). The Court specifically rejected any overtime calculation based on dividing the weekly salary by total hours worked and paying ½ time for overtime hours. 

What are the lessons? First, all employers must ensure that individuals classified as exempt learned professionals have at the least Bachelors Degree in a specific discipline and that the educational coursework to achieve the degree is essential to the performance of job duties. Second, employers should be very wary of advising any employee classified as exempt that their salary covers a set number of hours per week. Rather, employers should advise employees that the salary covers all hours worked.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Often when analyzing whether a position is exempt, we only focus on whether the job duties are sufficient for exempt status. However, in most instances, there is a second requirement: compliance with the salary basis test.   A recent decision issued by Judge Larimer of the Western District of New York is a reminder to not overlook salary basis test compliance. Simply put, deductions from the salary of an exempt employee must be carefully monitored to ensure that they comply with the FLSA regulations and do not destroy the exemption. 

At issue in Scholtisek v. Eldre Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26664 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2010) was evidence presented at the summary judgment stage that the employer “both engaged in an actual practice of making unlawful deductions, and maintained a policy that created a significant likelihood of such deductions [from the salary of exempt employees]”, and that such a practice and policy destroyed the plaintiffs’ exempt status, entitling them to overtime under the FLSA. The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, based on documentary evidence and admissions from the HR professionals responsible for the company’s payroll which together demonstrated that there had been a policy of making partial day deductions from the salaries of exempt employees for missed work time, in contravention of 29 CFR § 541.602. Defendant was not entitled to the “window of correction” to remedy the error, because the window is available to correct payroll mistakes, not unlawful policies.

The Court did not rule as to the appropriate remedy for this violation, observing that “[o]n the record before me, however, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law during what periods those improper deductions did occur, the extent to which they occurred, exactly which employees or job classifications were affected by this practice, or the number of hours for which plaintiffs are entitled to overtime pay. The amount of damages therefore remains to be decided.” The Court will ultimately need to rule as to whether the exemption loss was limited to only those who were subject to an actual deduction and/or whether for the period of time for which the exemption was lost is limited only to those individual workweeks in which the deduction was taken.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There are many reasons an employer may decide to reclassify an employee from exempt to non-exempt: changes in the law; modified court or DOL interpretations of existing law; as a result of an internal audit; or, simply based on changes in the business needs of the company. Does that decision to reclassify create evidence that the employee was “misclassified” as exempt, and that the misclassification was willful? No, said the court in Clarke v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, No. 08-CV-2400 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2010), holding that reclassification does not establish that the employee was misclassified, or that any violation was willful.

In Clarke, the employer decided to reclassify various technical computer workers based on the increasing number of FLSA suits. Because one of the plaintiffs who had been reclassified waited over two years after the reclassification to file suit, the FLSA claim was time barred unless he could establish the employer “willfully” violated the law, extending the FLSA statute of limitations to three years.

In support of his claim that he was misclassified and that the misclassification was willful (thus saving the claim), plaintiff argued the decision to reclassify itself demonstrated knowledge that the prior classification was wrong. The court rejected this, and held the decision to reclassify did not establish a willful violation, but just the opposite: a good faith effort by the Company to ensure that the company’s classification complied with the FLSA. The reclassification was likely a conservative measure adopted at a time when FLSA collective action overtime lawsuits were becoming more and more common, the court held.  Indeed, the court held “if the mere fact of a reclassification were enough to trigger the exceptional three year limitations period, it [the three year limitations period] would cease to become an exception.” 

Additionally, as to a second plaintiff whose claims were not time-barred, the court held the reclassification did not establish that the employee was misclassified. “The mere fact that an employee was reclassified cannot establish an employer’s liability for the period prior to the reclassification,” the court held, reemphasizing that, under the FLSA, it is the duties that control. In fact, despite the reclassification, the court granted summary judgment to the employer finding the employee was exempt under the computer professional exemption—one of only a handful of cases addressing that exemption. 

While plaintiffs’ counsel will certainly continue to argue that any decision to reclassify is evidence that the employee was previously misclassified, the reclassification decision alone will not, according to the Clarke court, provide evidence of a willful violation or establish that the employee was in fact misclassified in the first place. This decision provides some comfort to employers who decide to reclassify employees, and will permit employers to reclassify employees in cases where the exempt status is unclear with less fear that the decision to reclassify will be used against the company in a lawsuit challenging the original classification decision.     

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 24, 2010, Nancy J. Leppink, the Deputy Administrator for the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor, issued an “Administrator’s Interpretation” stating that employees who perform the typical job duties of a mortgage loan officer generally do not meet the prerequisites for the administrative exemption under the FLSA.   The issuance of the Interpretation is a significant departure from the Division’s past practice of generally issuing legal opinions solely in response to requests for guidance from the public, and may be a sign of a more aggressive Wage and Hour Division.  The Interpretation is directly contrary to a September 8, 2006 opinion letter issued by the Division stating that mortgage loan officers could qualify for the exemption, and in fact the Deputy Administrator stated that the previous opinion was based on a misleading assumption and a selective and narrow analysis.

The Division bases its new position on the following conclusions:

• A Mortgage Loan Officer’s primary duty is to make sales and accordingly he/she performs production work and not administrative work.  As stated by the Deputy Administrator, “[w]ork such as collecting financial information from customers, entering it into the computer program to determine what particular loan products might be available to that customer and explaining the terms of the available options and the pros and cons of each option, so that a sale can be made, constitutes the production work of an employer engaged in selling or brokering mortgage loan products.”

• While in certain situations, providing advice to a business regarding a potential mortgage to purchase land could qualify as exempt work based on it being related to the management or general business operations of the employer’s customers, home loans do not as “[i]ndividuals acting in a purely personal capacity do not have “management or general business operations.”

• Its belief that the September 8, 2006 opinion letter improperly created an alternative standard for the administrative exemption for employees in the financial services industry.

This is a significant development for industry employers that relied on the administrative exemption for loan officers based on the 2006 opinion letter.  This narrowing of the definition of “administrative” work by the DOL is also consistent with the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Davis v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 587 F.3d 529 (2d Cir. 2009)(underwriter “produced” bank’s product of making loans, and thus was not an administrative employee). 

While it is not a resolved legal issue, some courts have held that the 7(i) “commissioned employee” exemption also is inapplicable to mortgage loan officers because they do not work in a “retail” industry. Compare Gatto v. Mortgage Specialists of Ill., Inc., 442 F. Supp. 2d 529 (N.D. Ill. 2006) with In re: Wells Fargo Home Mortg. Overtime Pay Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46595 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2008). This would leave the outside sales exemption as the only potential exemption on which employers in the industry can rely, however, such exemption typically has limited application in the industry as most mortgage loan officers perform services from a fixed location.  An additional open question remains as to whether loan officers who are “highly compensated” (i.e., are paid on an FLSA-compliant salary basis and receive more than $100,000/year in total compensation) may still qualify for exemption.  29 CFR § 541.601.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link