Because most FLSA exemptions are affirmative defenses, their applicability is not often established by the Plaintiff’s Complaint, of which s/he is “master” and can shape to avoid addressing exemption-triggering duties. There are exceptions. In a recent opinion, a Manhattan federal district judge ruled that a commissioned salesman who traveled from his home office to

Applicability of the technical FLSA exemptions can sometimes turn on subtle distinctions, a frustrating proposition for FLSA litigants. A new opinion highlights these subtleties, as, on a motion for reconsideration made ahead of a bench trial, a court reversed its earlier ruling denying summary judgment to defendant bank as to the applicability of the administrative

In Michigan, a federal judge this week held that certain employees of a staffing company – namely account managers, senior account managers, assistant branch managers, staffing consultants, and senior staffing consultants – were administrative employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore not entitled to overtime. Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC,

Reversing the D.C. Circuit’s 2013 opinion, the Supreme Court today held that the U.S. Department of Labor did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when, in 2010, it issued its Administrator’s Interpretation stating that mortgage loan officers generally do not qualify for the administrative exemption without first affording the public the opportunity for

The determination of whether an entity is covered by the Railway Labor Act impacts compensation strategy and potential liability as the FLSA exempts from its overtime requirement individuals employed by such air carriers.  The coverage determination is made by the National Mediation Board (NMB), which recently issued new opinion re-confirming the applicability of the Railway

Reviewing a decision of a trial judge reversing a jury’s finding that several lumber company managers were properly classified as exempt, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on the narrow issue of whether testimony that ownership solicited feedback from “all employees” could support a finding that the exempt managers’ recommendations were given

Building on its prior rulings in so-called “donning and doffing” cases, the Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit’s 2012 decision holding that the donning of certain protective gear qualifies as “changing clothes” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(o), and thus is susceptible to exclusion from the hours worked calculation under the terms

Following-up on his decision on January 7th granting summary judgment to Prospect Mortgage regarding the applicability of the outside sales exemption to one loan officer, Judge James C. Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia has issued two more decisions on similar motions for summary judgment by the employer, granting a second one and