administrative production dichotomy

The exempt status of loan officers continues to make headlines as the Mortgage Bankers Association presses for Supreme Court affirmance of its successful challenge to a DOL opinion regarding the applicability of the administrative exemption to those workers.  A new court decision highlights the fact intensive nature of exemption inquiries, and also the potentially misleading

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).

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

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.

In 2010, Judge Leonard Wexler of the Eastern District of New York denied summary judgment in an early motion regarding the applicability of the administrative exemption to GEICO’s insurance adjusters.  Harper v. Gov’t Emples. Ins. Co., 754 F. Supp. 2d 461 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).  Now, three years later, following extensive class-wide discovery on the issue

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

Confusion continues to reign throughout the federal district courts as to the scope of the administrative exemption as set forth in the regulations at 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.200-202. In a decision highlighting this lack of clarity, Federal District Judge Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York recently denied cross-motions for summary judgment as to

As discussed here and here, the availability of the FLSA’s administrative exemption continues to be a hotly-contested issue in wage and hour litigation. One of the many areas of dispute in applying the exemption concerns whether an employee performs a “production” role (rendering the exemption inapplicable) or an administrative role with duties related to the