administrative exemption

The FLSA’s technical “white collar exemption” regulations, slated for review and potential overhaul later this year, allow plaintiffs’ attorneys and even the highly paid employees they represent to challenge exempt status.  A recent decision from the Eastern District of Virginia rejects one such claim brought by a highly paid information technology worker paid a

Perhaps no single exemption classification under the FLSA has been subject to as much scrutiny, or generated as much inconsistent authority from courts and the United States Department of Labor, as the classification of loan officers in the mortgage banking industry.  In 2013, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit invalidated the Department of

Judge William Terrell Hodges of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently ruled that an employee with an LPN degree who was responsible for managing an employer’s workers’ compensation claims qualified for the administrative exemption.  Hodge v. ClosetMaid Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45490 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2014).

Cases upholding the exempt status of dispatchers pursuant to the administrative exemption of the FLSA generally have focused on whether the position requires the performance of decision-making duties and analysis “beyond mere communication and tracking of vehicles.”  A new decision builds on that analysis.  Wade v. Werner Trucking Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35653

Though courts have generally disfavored such claims, from time to time insurance adjusters and examiners allege that the FLSA’s administrative exemption does not apply to their work because their work either: 1) does not relate to business operations of their employer; or 2) does not require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.  Rejecting

Administrative employees classified as exempt under the administrative exemption who function as a “one man department” at times challenge whether their work genuinely constitutes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.  They argue that without subordinates, the work must entail significant ministerial tasks.  Rejecting just such a challenge,

While much litigation has concerned the applicability of the administrative exemption to loan officers, culminating in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s invalidation of the Department of Labor’s interpretation that they do not qualify for that exemption, loan officers with appropriate job duties and responsibilities may also qualify for the outside sales

Continuing its line of common sense interpretations of the administrative exemption, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that an insurance company employee tasked with maintaining an in-depth understanding of particular insurance products and training sales staff on those products was an administratively exempt employee.  Blanchar v. Std. Ins. Co.

A recent federal court decision reiterates that an employee whose primary duties are managerial in nature who wields discretion and independent judgment to make employment and business decisions qualifies for the administrative exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, in addition to eligibility for the “executive” exemption commonly applied to

An employee holding a position involving some degree of managerial authority but not enough to qualify for the executive exemption, is sometimes classified as exempt under the administrative exemption. This classification is premised on, among other duties, these individuals making decisions concerning workflow, prioritizing tasks, and communicating with customers.  The Court of Appeals for the