Home » Exemptions (Page 8)
Category Archives: Exemptions
N.D.Cal.: Damages In A Salary Misclassification Case Must Be Calculated At Time And A Half; Fluctuating Workweek Not Applicable Without “Clear Mutual Understanding” And/Or Contemporaneous Payments Of Overtime
Russell v. Wells Fargo and Co.
This case was before the Court on the parties’ partial Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, regarding the methodology to be applied to determine damages where, as here, an employee is misclassified and paid solely their weekly salary, despite the fact they work overtime hours. The Plaintiffs asserted that they were due the default time and a half (1.5x) under the FLSA, but the Defendant argued that Plaintiffs’ damages should be calculated under the exception to the default rule, referred to as the Fluctuating Workweek (FWW), whereby they would receive so-called half-time in lieu of time and a half. In a detailed well-reasoned decision, the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs, and determined that Plaintiffs were due time and a half for all overtime hours worked, because Defendant could not meet several of the elements required for the application of the FWW.
The Court framed the following 3 issues for resolution on the Motions:
“1. Whether it is possible to have the required “clear mutual understanding” necessary to compute damages by the fluctuating workweek method (FWW method) in an exempt/non-exempt misclassification case;
2. Whether the concurrent payment of overtime pay is a required element to compute unpaid overtime by the FWW method, such that the FWW method of overtime calculation cannot be used in an exempt/non-exempt misclassification case; and
3. Whether damages (if any) on the FLSA overtime claim of an opt-in plaintiff who resides in California or Connecticut can be computed by the FWW method.”
Denying Defendant’s Motion seeking to apply the FWW, and granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to apply the time and a half default standard, for calculating Plaintiffs’ damages, the Court explained:
“Defendants argue that the FWW method can be used to calculate overtime pay retroactively for the purposes of determining damages in an exempt misclassification case. They assert that the FWW method is available when the employer and employee have a clear mutual understanding that a fixed salary will compensate the employee for all hours worked in a week, including those in excess of the FLSA’s forty-hour maximum, even if the “understanding” is based on the employer’s erroneous premise that the employee is exempt and thus not entitled to overtime pay. Defendants’ argument is untenable. The FWW method cannot be used to calculate overtime pay retroactively in a misclassification case.
As noted above, section 778.114 contains legal prerequisites, which employers must first satisfy to use the discounted overtime rate available through the FWW method. These prerequisites include (1) a clear mutual understanding that a fixed salary will be paid for fluctuating hours, apart from overtime premiums; and (2) the contemporaneous payment of overtime premiums.
When an employee is not exempt and is paid a fixed salary for fluctuating hours, the employer can satisfy these prerequisites. The employer and employee must have a clear mutual understanding of the fixed salary which, by law, must include an understanding that an overtime premium will be paid for any hours worked over the forty-hour-per-week maximum. Because both parties understand that overtime hours will be compensated, overtime pay would be provided contemporaneously.
When an employee is treated as exempt from being paid for overtime work, there is neither a clear mutual understanding that overtime will be paid nor a contemporaneous payment of overtime. Thus, when an employee is erroneously classified as exempt and illegally not being paid overtime, neither of these legal prerequisites for use of the FWW method is satisfied.
First, an effective clear mutual understanding is absent in misclassification cases. Defendants assert that an employer could have a clear mutual understanding with its employees that the employees would be paid a flat weekly rate for fluctuating hours, including those hours worked in excess of forty, and would not receive overtime pay. Defendants essentially argue that misclassified employees have implicitly agreed not to receive their FLSA entitlement to overtime pay. This would be illegal. Employees cannot agree to waive their right to overtime pay. See Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739-40 (1981).
Second, because the employees were erroneously classified as exempt, overtime compensation was not provided contemporaneously. Employers cannot satisfy this requirement, after having been found to violate section 207, by claiming that they had intended to pay overtime; such an after-the-fact provision of overtime compensation was rejected by the Supreme Court in Overnight Motor. See 316 U .S. at 581 (rejecting the employer’s attempt to use FWW method where there was “no provision for additional pay in the event the hours worked required minimum compensation greater than the fixed wage”). As stated above, 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(c) requires contemporaneous overtime pay: the FWW method cannot be used “where all the facts indicate that an employee is being paid for his overtime hours at a rate no greater than that which he receives for nonovertime hours.” 29 C.F.R. § 778.114(c). In a misclassification case, because employees have not been paid overtime premiums, they are compensated for those hours worked more than forty at a rate not greater than the regular rate.
If Defendants’ position were adopted, an employer, after being held liable for FLSA violations, would be able unilaterally to choose to pay employees their unpaid overtime premium under the more employer-friendly of the two calculation methods. Given the remedial purpose of the FLSA, it would be incongruous to allow employees, who have been illegally deprived of overtime pay, to be shortchanged further by an employer who opts for the discount accommodation intended for a different situation.
In making its decision here, the Court is “mindful of the directive that the [FLSA] is to be liberally construed to apply to the furthest reaches consistent with Congressional direction.” Klem v. County of Santa Clara, 208 F.3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Biggs v. Wilson, 1 F.3d 1537, 1539 (9th Cir.1993)) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
The Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed the question of whether the FWW method may be used retroactively to compensate employees who have been misclassified as exempt.FN4 In Oliver v.. Mercy Medical Center, the court concluded that the FWW method could not be used to calculate liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S .C. § 216, in part because the plaintiff-employee and the defendant-employer did not agree to a fixed salary covering all hours worked in a week. See 695 F.2d 379, 381 (9th Cir.1982). Oliver confirms that an employer and employee must, at the least, agree to a fixed salary for fluctuating hours. But its holding does not address whether the FWW method can be applied retrospectively to calculate overtime pay in a misclassification case. To the extent the holding is silent on this point, there is no binding Ninth Circuit precedent.
In Bailey v. County of Georgetown, 94 F.3d 152 (4th Cir.1996), non-exempt employees challenged their employer’s use of the FWW method to calculate their overtime pay. Instead of compensating overtime at the time-and-a-half rate, the employer opted for the FWW method and paid a one-half time premium based on fluctuating hours. Id. at 153-54. The employees claimed that this was improper, arguing that the FWW method could only apply if it was shown that they “clearly understood the manner in which their overtime pay was being calculated under the plan.” Id. at 154. The court disagreed. The Fourth Circuit determined that neither the plain language of the FLSA nor section 778.114 required an understanding on how overtime would be calculated; according to the court, all that section 778.114 requires is a clear mutual understanding of a fixed salary for fluctuating hours. Id. at 156-57. The court provided no additional analysis. And because the case involved non-exempt employees who were paid overtime, the court had no occasion to address whether contemporaneous overtime pay was a requirement.
Thus, Bailey did not address remedial payment to misclassified employees. Nonetheless, the First and Tenth Circuits applied its rule to misclassification cases. See, e.g., Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir.2008); Valerio v. Putnam Associates, 173 F.3d 35 (1st Cir.1999). In Clements and Valerio, the courts held that the FWW method can be used to calculate overtime pay retroactively. But Clements and Valerio merely cite Bailey. Neither provides a substantive analysis or explains why Bailey should apply in the misclassification context. See Clements, 530 F.3d at 1230; Valerio, 173 F.3d at 40. The Fourth Circuit similarly applied Bailey’s interpretation of section 778.114 in the misclassification context without analysis. See Roy v. County of Lexington, South Carolina, 141 F.3d 533, 547 (4th Cir.1998). In Blackmon v. Brookshire Grocery Company, the Fifth Circuit applied the FWW method in a misclassification case. 835 F.2d 1135, 1138 (5th Cir.1988). Blackmon, like the other cases above, offers no explanation. See 835 F.2d at 1138-39.
District courts outside these circuits have held that the FWW method cannot be used in misclassification cases. In Rainey v. American Forest & Paper Association, the court analyzed section 778.114 and found that its requirements include a clear mutual understanding that the employee is entitled to overtime compensation and contemporaneous payment of overtime premiums. 26 F.Supp.2d 82, 99-102 (D.D.C.1998); see also Hunter v. Sprint Corp., 453 F.Supp.2d 44, 58-62 (D.D.C.2006) (discussing application of the FWW method in a misclassification case). Other courts have rejected the use of the FWW method in misclassification cases because there is no contemporaneous payment of overtime compensation in such cases. See, e.g., Cowan v. Treetop Enters., 163 F.Supp.2d 930, 941 (M.D.Tenn.2001) (citing Rainey ); Scott v. OTS Inc., 2006 WL 870369, *12 (N.D.Ga.) (citing Rainey ).
Defendants reject many of the other cases cited by Plaintiffs because “they are not in the exemption misclassification context.” Defs.’ Reply at 12. However, Bailey, the case relied upon by most of the cases cited by Defendants, was likewise not in the exemption misclassification context. Thus, Defendants’ argument undermines their reliance on Valerio, Clements and Roy. Accordingly, the Court does not follow Bailey and its progeny: Bailey is not on point, and the cases that rely on it are not persuasive.
The Court is similarly unpersuaded by the DOL’s January 14 letter. Generally, courts must defer to the expertise of an agency in interpreting statutes that Congress charged to administer. See Cent. Ariz. Water Conservation Dist. v. EPA, 990 F.2d 1531, 1539-40 (9th Cir.1993) (citing Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)). However, opinion letters do not warrant such deference; under Skidmore v. Swift, 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944), they are to be accorded respect, not deference. An opinion letter is entitled to respect to the extent that it has the “power to persuade.” See Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000).
The opinion letter does not explain why the FWW method should be applied retrospectively, despite the plain language of the DOL’s long-standing interpretation of the FLSA contained in § 778.114. The letter relies solely upon Clements and Valerio to explain the DOL’s new position, and it goes no further to detail why the DOL was departing from its forty-year-old interpretation. Given the DOL’s significant change in course, this explanation is insufficient. Further, the DOL’s prior abandoned effort to revise § 778.114(a) through notice-and-comment rulemaking, and the timing of the opinion letter’s release-less than one week before a change in the administration-detract from its persuasiveness. Deferring to the letter “would permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation.” Christensen, 529 U.S. at 588. The DOL cannot use the letter to make a substantive regulatory change that would have the force of law. See id. at 587. The letter lacks thoroughness in its explanation and consistency with the DOL’s earlier FLSA interpretation. The Court is not persuaded by it. See id. (citing Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140).
Thus, the background and policy of the FLSA, the Supreme Court’s decision in Overnight Motor and the DOL’s 1968 interpretive rules demonstrate that the FWW method cannot be used to calculate overtime pay retroactively for the purposes of determining damages under the FLSA in a misclassification case. Section 778.114, which the DOL promulgated in light of Overnight Motor, provides legal prerequisites that cannot be satisfied in a misclassification case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets § 778.114 to restrict application of the FWW method to calculate overtime pay to situations where (1) there is a clear mutual understanding between an employer and employee that the employee will be paid a fixed salary for fluctuating weekly hours but nonetheless receive overtime premiums and (2) overtime is compensated contemporaneously. The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the first and second stipulated legal issues. Based upon these holdings, the Court need not decide the third stipulated issue. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ motions for partial summary judgment on the third stipulated legal issue.”
2d. Cir.: Employee Is Not Professionally Exempt Unless His Work Requires Knowledge Customarily Acquired After A Prolonged Course Of Specialized, Intellectual Instruction And Study
Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held on summary judgment that, as a matter of law, plaintiff, a “Product Design Specialist,” was not subject to the “professional exemption” to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant appealed and the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that an employee is not an exempt professional unless his work requires knowledge that is customarily acquired after a prolonged course of specialized, intellectual instruction and study.
Describing the relevant facts and the holding below, the Court stated, “Young is a high school graduate. He enrolled in some courses at various universities, but did not obtain a degree. Before he was hired by Cameron, he worked for 20 years in the engineering field as a draftsman, detailer, and designer. He was a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, a membership that required the recommendation of three engineers. For three of the 20 years, Young worked with what are known as hydraulic power units (“HPUs”).
In the spring of 2001, Young applied for a job with Cameron, and he was offered the position of Mechanical Designer in the HPU group. This position paid an hourly wage of $26 and was classified as non-exempt under the FLSA. Young, seeking higher pay, declined.
Soon after, Young met again with Cameron. This time, Cameron offered to hire him as a PDS II-a position that Cameron had determined, through multiple internal and external analyses, was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. This job paid an annual salary of $62,000 (an effective hourly wage of $29.81). Applicants were required to have twelve years of relevant experience; but no particular kind or amount of education was required, and no PDS II had a college degree. Young accepted Cameron’s offer on July 23, 2001, understanding that the position was exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. For his three-year tenure at Cameron, Young worked as a PDS II in the HPU group.
HPUs contain fluid under pressure for use in connection with oil drilling rigs. They are large and complex, and they are subject to a variety of industry standards, codes, and government specifications. Young was the principal person in charge of drafting plans for HPUs. This work required depth of knowledge and experience, and entailed considerable responsibility and discretion. For example, Young assimilated layers and types of specifications into a safe, functional, and serviceable design that met consumer demands, engineering requirements, and industry standards. Young personally selected various structural components of the HPU and modified certain specifications to account for new technology. In these ways, Young operated at the center of both the conceptual and physical processes of HPU creation and development.
On August 2, 2004, after losing his job in a reduction-in-force, Young sued Cameron in federal court, alleging that Cameron had improperly and willfully classified him as an exempt professional. The district court, adopting a report and recommendation from the magistrate judge (Gorenstein, M.J.), granted partial summary judgment to Young on the exemption issue. The court held as a matter of law that the work of a PDS II is ‘not of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.’ ”
Affirming the lower Court’s Order finding Plaintiff not subject to the professional exemption, the Court stated:
“The typical symbol of the professional training and the best prima facie evidence of its possession is, of course, the appropriate academic degree, and in these professions an advanced academic degree is a standard (if not universal) prerequisite.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.301(e)(1). So it is not the case that “anyone employed in the field of … engineering … will qualify for exemption as a professional employee by virtue of such employment.” Id. § 541.308(a). At the same time, “the exemption of [an] individual depends upon his duties and other qualifications.” Id. “The field of ‘engineering’ has many persons with ‘engineer’ titles, who are not professional engineers, as well as many who are trained in the engineering profession, but are actually working as trainees, junior engineers, or draftsmen.” Id. § 541.308(b). Thus “technical specialists must be more than highly skilled technicians” to be eligible for the professional exemption. Id. § 541.301(e)(2); see also id. (“The professional person … attains his status after a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.”).
As the Secretary interprets the regulations, a three-part test determines whether an employee has the type of knowledge sufficient to qualify as an exempt professional. First, the employee’s “knowledge must be of an advanced type … generally speaking, it must be knowledge which cannot be attained at the high school level.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.301(b). Second, the knowledge must be in a field of science or learning. Id. § 541.301(c). Third, the knowledge “must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study.” Id. § 541.301(d). The word “customarily” is key:
The word ‘customarily’ implies that in the vast majority of cases the specific academic training is a prerequisite for entrance into the profession. It makes the exemption available to the occasional lawyer who has not gone to law school, or the occasional chemist who is not the possessor of a degree in chemistry, etc., but it does not include the members of such quasi-professions as journalism in which the bulk of the employees have acquired their skill by experience rather than by any formal specialized training. Id.
It is uncontested that the job of a PDS II requires no formal advanced education. The issue is whether a position can be exempt notwithstanding the lack of an educational requirement, if the duties actually performed require knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning. Cameron argues for a stand-alone “duties test” independent from any educational considerations. Young argues, and the district court held, that if advanced and specialized education is not customarily required, the exemption cannot apply, regardless of the employee’s duties.
We agree with Young and the district court. The regulations state that a professional is someone “[w]hose primary duty consists of the performance of [w]ork requiring knowledge of an advance type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study. 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(a)(1) (emphasis added). As noted above, “customarily” in this context makes the exemption applicable to the rare individual who, unlike the vast majority of others in the profession, lacks the formal educational training and degree. But where most or all employees in a particular job lack advanced education and instruction, the exemption is inapplicable: hence, the Secretary’s interpretation advising that “members of such quasi-professions as journalism in which the bulk of the employees have acquired their skill by experience rather than by any formal specialized training” are not properly considered exempt professionals. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.301(d).
We therefore hold that an employee is not an exempt professional unless his work requires knowledge that is customarily acquired after a prolonged course of specialized, intellectual instruction and study. If a job does not require knowledge customarily acquired by an advanced educational degree-as for example when many employees in the position have no more than a high school diploma-then, regardless of the duties performed, the employee is not an exempt professional under the FLSA.
With these principles in mind, it is clear that Young is not exempt. The undisputed evidence is that the PDS II position required no advanced educational training or instruction and that, in fact, no PDS II had more than a high school education.
Two sister courts have issued persuasive opinions on this subject. In Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659, 675 (5th Cir.2001), the only decisive factors were education and discretion (the exercise of professional judgment on the job). On that basis, the court distinguished emergency medical technicians and paramedics (who are not required to have college degrees) from nurses and athletic trainers (who are so required). Id. (explaining that EMTs and paramedics are not exempt professionals because they “lack the educational background to satisfy the education prong of the Learned Professional exemption”).
In Fife v. Harmon, 171 F.3d 1173, 1177 (8th Cir.1999), the minimum qualifications for the plaintiffs’ position as Airfield Operation Specialists were “a Bachelor’s degree in aviation management or a directly related field, or four years of full-time experience in aviation administration, or an equivalent combination of experience and education.” The court held the exemption inapplicable: “This is advanced knowledge from a general academic education and from an apprenticeship, not from a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The court did not separately consider the nature of the plaintiffs’ duties.
Other cases similarly tie the exemption analysis to the academic requirements of the position at issue. See, e.g., Reich v. Wyoming, 993 F.2d 739, 743 (10th Cir.1993) (concluding that game wardens are subject to the professional exemption because they must have a degree in wildlife management, biology, or a similar field); Dybach v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 942 F.2d 1562, 1566 (11th Cir.1991) (“Dybach’s position [as a probation officer] did not rise to the level of a section 213(a)(1) [exempt] professional because it did not require a college or an advanced degree in any specialized field of knowledge.”).
Finally, the case law advanced by Cameron is neither binding on this Court nor inconsistent with our conclusion. Some of these cases either misapply (or ignore altogether) the requirement that the plaintiff’s knowledge be of the type customarily acquired by a prolonged course of advanced intellectual study. See Debejian v. Atl. Testing Labs., Ltd., 64 F.Supp.2d 85, 88 (N.D.N.Y.1999); Stevins v. Provident Constr. Co., No. 04-15189, 137 Fed.Appx. 198, 199 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2005). Another case cited by Cameron provides minimal justification for its holding. See Dingwall v. Friedman Fisher Assocs., P.C., 3 F.Supp.2d 215, 218 (N.D.N.Y.1998) (holding, without explanation, that designing electrical systems is “clearly an area requiring advanced knowledge in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study”).
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that, as a matter of law, Young was not an exempt professional because he did not do work which required knowledge customarily acquired by a prolonged course of advanced intellectual study.”
Therefore, the Court affirmed the lower Court’s ruling that Plaintiff, who lacked a prolonged course of specialized, intellectual instruction and study, was not professionally exempt.
D.Minn.: “Special Investigators” For Insurance Company, Who Investigate Potentially Fraudulent Claims, Non-Exempt As Matter Of Law; Entitled To Overtime Pay
Fenton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
Farmers Insurance Exchange (“FIE”) is an inter-insurance exchange, or reciprocal, organized in California. FIE employs special investigators who investigate potentially fraudulent insurance claims. Special investigator Michael Fenton alleges that he and other FIE special investigators routinely work more than forty hours per week, but are improperly classified as “exempt” from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Fenton and twenty other named plaintiffs bring this collective action challenging this practice on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated special investigators. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Both Plaintiffs and Defendant moved for summary judgment. Both motions were granted in part and denied in part. Significantly, as discussed here though, Plaintiffs were found to be non-exempt based on their duties performed (and entitled to overtime).
The Court recited the following facts as pertinent to its decision regarding Plaintiffs’ non-exempt status, “FIE is a reciprocal or inter-insurance exchange that sells insurance policies throughout the county. As a reciprocal exchange company, FIE is owned by its policyholders, or “subscribers,” who exchange contracts with one another and, by pooling their resources, insure one another against certain losses. FIE, whether on its own or through its related companies, performs all the functions of a typical insurance company, including selling policies, contracting with individual agents who sell and service policies, procuring reinsurance, and adjusting claims.
FIE’s special investigators-the plaintiffs in this action-investigate the factual basis for subscribers’ insurance claims, to determine whether the claims should be paid. The claim investigation process and the job duties of the investigators are critical to this action, and are described in detail below.
The claims investigations process begins with FIE’s claims representatives, who work out of a different business unit than the investigators, and flag claims that exhibit potential signs of fraud. (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, at 127-28.) The claims representatives then use a shared electronic database to refer the flagged claims to an FIE unit staffed by the plaintiffs. ( Id. at 105.) Managers in this unit then assign the claims to specific investigators. ( Id. at 107.)
After an investigator receives an assignment, he or she is required to promptly contact the claims representative who referred the claim. ( Id. at 115-16.) The investigator is required to consider the specific issues flagged by the claims representative, and attempt to develop a plan to investigate those issues. ( Id.; Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. F, at 74.) While investigators may occasionally suggest an additional fraud indicator to pursue, they do not reshape the scope of an investigation without first getting the approval of the claims representative or their supervisor. (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 116, Ex. 7, at 44 (“It’s [the claims representative’s] file.”); id. Ex. 2, at 38 (indicating that investigation plans are “always” sent to supervisors for approval).) In addition, while investigators may recommend that a claim does not require the work of an investigator, the final decision about whether to close an investigation is made by supervisors or claims representatives. (Ashbridge Decl., Docket No. 41, ¶ 18.)
Plaintiffs’ investigations often involve taking photographs of relevant materials; retrieving police or fire reports and other records; and interviewing the claimant and other witnesses. ( Id. ¶ 19.) Investigators also ensure that FIE complies with California’s requirement that suspected insurance fraud be reported to the state. See
Cal. Ins.Code § 1872.4. While plaintiffs may recommend that FIE use an expert to evaluate an incident, this determination is ultimately made by the claims representative. (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 116, Ex. 2, at 48.) In addition, while plaintiffs encounter new leads on occasion in the course of their investigations, they are not to pursue those leads without permission of the claims representative or a supervisor. (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. F, at 75.)
When an investigator believes that an investigation is complete, he or she contacts the claims representative to determine if the representative would like him or her to investigate further. (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 116, Ex. 12, at 158.) Once the claims representative approves the closing of the investigation, the investigators are required to submit an exhaustive file of their research materials, including “a list of all completed tasks (or an explanation of why a task was not completed), a report of any inconsistencies, discrepancies, and/or significant findings (both inculpating and exculpating); [and] a complete summary of the entire investigation.” (Ashbridge Decl., Docket No. 41, ¶ 22.) In addition, although investigators describe coming to credibility determinations after interviews with witnesses or claimants, and occasionally share these impressions in informal conversations with the assigning claims representatives, “the special investigator’s subjective opinions or conclusions are excluded from [these] written reports,” and investigators do not otherwise draft recommendations about whether a claim should be paid. ( Id. ¶ 21; Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. A, at 146.)
Investigators are required to open new investigations at a rate of 12.5 per month, and must close each investigation within fourteen days. (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. 11, at 46.) These investigations are their primary job duty. (Ashbridge Decl., Docket No. 41, ¶ 6.) Investigators are also required to randomly review claim files to look for fraud indicators, an activity which accounts for 5% of their overall performance rating, (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. P, at 7), and occasionally conduct training for claims representatives about insurance fraud awareness.
FIE randomly subjects plaintiffs’ work product to Quality Assurance (“QA”) review. The results of QA reviews constitute 50% of FIE’s overall evaluation of an investigator’s performance. ( Id .) The guidelines for performing a QA review are nine pages long, and include dozens of specific criteria that are used to evaluate an investigation’s quality. (Moran Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. O.) The QA guidelines give specific timelines for investigators’ work, state twenty-five separate steps that investigators should consider in the course of their investigations, and state nineteen requirements for investigators’ written reports. ( Id.) The QA guidelines add that the investigators’ “purpose is to provide … factual information that allows the Claims Professionals … to make good decisions, not tell them what decision to make, or provide conjecture on what really happened.” ( Id.)”
Discussing the relevant law the Court stated, “The FLSA delegates authority to define the scope of its exemptions to the Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”). 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). In accordance with that authority, the Secretary has established the “short duties test,” which is used to determine whether an employee earning more than $455 per week qualifies for the administrative exemption. To qualify as exempt, an employee’s primary duty must (1) consist of the performance of office or non-manual work “directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers”; and (2) include “the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” 29 C.F.R. § 541 .200(a). The Secretary further explains:
The phrase ‘directly related to the management or general business operations’ refers to the type of work performed by the employee. To meet this requirement, an employee must perform work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the business as distinguished, for example, from working on a manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment.29 C.F.R. § 541.201(a). In addition, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. The term “matters of significance” refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed.
29 C.F.R. § 541.202(a). The Secretary adds that whether an employee exercises sufficient discretion and independent judgment depends on factors such as “whether the employee has authority to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures without prior approval [and] whether the employee has authority to negotiate and bind the company on significant matters.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b). In other words, “[t]he exercise of discretion and independent judgment must be more than the use of skill in applying well-established techniques, procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(e). The regulations go on to explain how these provisions apply to several specific jobs. For example, insurance claims adjusters generally are exempt where:
their duties include activities such as interviewing insureds, witnesses and physicians; inspecting property damage; reviewing factual information to prepare damage estimates; evaluating and making recommendations regarding coverage of claims; determining liability and total value of a claim; negotiating settlements; and making recommendations regarding litigation. 29 C.F.R. 541.203(a). In accordance with this standard, the Ninth Circuit has determined that FIE’s claims representatives-the employees to whom plaintiffs deliver their investigation results-are exempt. See In re Farmers Ins. Exch., 481 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2007). The Secretary clarifies, however, that “ordinary inspection work,” involving well-established techniques and procedures … catalogued and described in manuals or other sources” are not exempt. 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(g). Similarly, the Secretary has specifically indicated that investigators working in law enforcement are not exempt where they “perform work such as … conducting investigations or inspections for violations of law; performing surveillance … interviewing witnesses … preparing investigative reports; or other similar work.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(b)(1).
In arguing that plaintiffs are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements, FIE relies heavily on the legal treatment of claims adjustors, both in the regulation quoted above, and in case law. See, e.g., McAllister, 325 F.3d at 999-1002 (finding an insurance claim “coordinator” exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements). Plaintiffs respond that their responsibilities are closer to those of mere investigators or inspectors, who are generally not exempt. In addition to the regulations quoted above, plaintiffs also point to an Opinion Letter issued by the Department of Labor, addressing employees who perform background investigations on federal employees seeking security clearances. See
Opinion Letter Fair Labor Standards Act, 2005 WL 3308592 (Dep’t of Labor Aug. 19, 2005); Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997) (indicating that the Secretary’s interpretations of her own regulations are controlling unless they are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations). The Secretary confirmed that these investigators are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements, after noting a list of job responsibilities that are at least as significant as those at issue here. 2005 WL 3308592. Those responsibilities included (1) gathering and checking public records; (2) interviewing witnesses; (3) making decisions about whether to report security threats to the Defense Security Service (“DSS”); (4) determining what leads to follow; (5) resolving discrepancies in information with limited guidance; (6) stating whether a witness is credible; and (7) providing factual information to DSS so it can make a final determination about whether an individual should receive a security clearance. Id. The DOL explained:
[P]lanning one’s own workload, such as prioritizing the pursuit of particular leads, assessing whether the leads provided are in the Investigator’s area of responsibility, or have provided information that requires further investigation, determining which potential witnesses to see and which documents to review, and making similar decisions that promote effective and efficient use of that individual’s own work time in performing assigned investigative activities, do not constitute exercising discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. 2005 WL 3308592 (internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis original).
Plaintiffs also note that at least one federal case has dealt specifically with the classification of employees hired to investigate insurance claims. In Gusdonovich v. Business Information Co., the court considered the status of employees whose primary responsibilities were “the search of public records, the serving of subpoenas and orders, surveillance, [and] the interrogation of witnesses.” 705 F.Supp. 262, 263 (W.D.Pa.1985). The investigators’ work was subject to review by supervisors, who assessed whether the scope of their investigations stayed within appropriate parameters. Id. at 264. The court determined that in those circumstances, the employees did not exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to satisfy the short duties test. The court explained that in light of the extensive oversight over the investigators, their fact-gathering merely involved “applying their knowledge and skill in determining what procedure to follow,” as opposed to any bona fide exercise of discretion and independent judgment. Id. at 265.
The Court agrees that plaintiffs’ job duties and FIE’s constraints on their discretion are sufficiently aligned with the employment circumstances of (1) the insurance investigators discussed in Gusdonovich, and (2) the employees performing background investigations and police investigations addressed by the Secretary, for plaintiffs to be non-exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements as a matter of law. Specifically, the Court concludes that the record demonstrates as a matter of law that plaintiffs do not “exercise … discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a).
In reaching this conclusion, the Court begins with FIE’s extensive QA review guidelines, which explain in great detail how plaintiffs should approach dozens of issues that typically arise in the performance and documentation of investigations. ( See Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. O.) Even though this document formally functions as guidance for how to evaluate investigators, rather than as guidance for how to perform investigations, deposition testimony demonstrates that investigators are well aware of it. ( See, e.g., Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. H, at 92 (noting that one employee creates his own checklists to match the QA guidelines).) In light of the fact that QA reviews constitute 50% of an employee’s overall performance assessment, it is unsurprising that their detailed criteria attract investigators’ fixed attention, and it is clear that they are relevant to this Court’s application of the short duties test. ( See, e.g., Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. H, at 92 (noting that one employee creates his own checklists to match the QA guidelines)); see also Gusdonovich, 705 F.Supp. at 265 (treating after-the-fact review as relevant to the scope of an employee’s discretion).
To be clear, FIE is correct that the mere fact that plaintiffs effectively operate in the shadow of an employment manual is not enough, on its own, to demonstrate that they are not exempt. See, e.g., McAllister, 325 F.3d at 1001 (“Just because McAllister was required to follow detailed manuals does not mean she did not exercise discretion and independent judgment.”); Cheatham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 578, 585 (5th Cir.2006) (“[T]he requirement that Allstate adjusters must consult with manuals or guidelines does not preclude their exercise of discretion and independent judgment.”). Indeed, it is not difficult to conceive of circumstances where even extensive guidance could nonetheless leave employees with considerable discretion on matters of significance. See McAllister, 325 F.3d at 1001. Here, however, the Court finds nothing in the residual discretion available to investigators that is sufficient to justify exemption. Most significantly, FIE concedes that the investigators’ subjective opinions and conclusions are excluded from their written reports. (Ashbridge Decl., Docket No. 41, ¶ 21.) This is squarely confirmed in a passage from the QA review quoted above, which flatly states that the investigators’ “purpose is to provide … factual information that allows the Claims Professionals … to make good decisions, not tell them what decision to make, or provide conjecture on what really happened.” (Morgan Aff., Docket No. 94, Ex. O.) The guidelines add that “[a]ll inculpating and exculpating information must be reported in equal detail and emphasis,” and “[o]pinions and/or speculative ‘what if’ scenarios are not acceptable.” ( Id.) While employees do not necessarily need to make final decisions in order to be exempt, see
29 C.F.R. § 541.202(c), this explanation of the investigator’s responsibilities-in conjunction with the requirement that investigators provide the claims representatives with any and all documents that they gathered during their investigation ( id. (“All reports must be attached to the file, even if the result was no information available.”))-sufficiently demonstrates that their primary role is simply to gather facts and present them for someone else to analyze. They have no authority to determine whether a claim is covered or whether FIE should seek to negotiate a settlement, and-while their thoughts on these types of higher-level decisions may come up in informal conversation-any minor role they play in such discussions is plainly not among their “primary” duties. Cf. McAllister, 325 F.3d at 1001 (finding claims adjusters exempt despite their compliance with manuals where they had authority to settle claims of up to $250,000); Cheatham, 465 F.3d at 586 (finding insurance employees exempt despite their compliance with manuals and guidelines where they had discretion to determine liability and negotiate settlements). In short, as in Gusdonovich and the Secretary’s analysis of government background investigators, it is clear that plaintiffs are limited to “applying well-established techniques” in developing an evidentiary record for claims representatives, and do not exercise sufficient discretion and independent judgment to meet the short duties test. 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(e).
As to the Secretary’s assessment of claims adjustors, which is relied on heavily by FIE, the Court simply adds that although an employee need not perform all of the duties of claims adjusters listed by the Secretary in order to qualify as exempt, see In re Farmers, 481 F.3d at 1129, that list includes a variety of significant, discretion-laden activities that are undisputedly not present here, such as “negotiating settlements” and “making recommendations regarding litigation.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(a). In short, while the Ninth Circuit was correct to apply this regulation to FIE’s claims representatives, this Court finds nothing in federal law that would justify extending it to the employees who merely gather facts for those representatives, particularly when those employees are formally barred from presenting their opinions about how to handle claims in their written reports. Accordingly, as to the question of whether plaintiffs are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements, plaintiffs’ motion is granted, and FIE’s motion is denied.”
S.D.N.Y.: Where FLSA Defendants Admit Plaintiff Worked As Both Independent Contractor And Employee, Money Earned As Independent Contractor Not Included For Inquiry As To Whether Plaintiff Earned $100,000
Magnoni v. Smith & Laquercia, LLP
This case was before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, on several grounds. Summarized below is the Court’s discussion/decision regarding Plaintiff’s earnings and their impact on her status under the so-called “highly compensated employee” exemption.
The Court’s decision relied on the following facts:
Plaintiff’s “employment at S & L, where she worked as a litigation paralegal and handled the normal responsibilities of a paralegal in a litigation law firm, began in 1990. Beginning in 2003, Magnoni was paid a weekly salary with no extra premium for overtime work. S & L paid Magnoni a salary of $64,807.70 in 2005; $67,653.74 in 2006; and $21,846.12 from January 1, 2007 through April 13, 2007. Magnoni alleges that between 2003 and 2005 she did not receive compensatory time or overtime pay from S & L, but admits she received some compensatory time (though no overtime pay) in 2006 and 2007.
Magnoni estimates that she worked approximately six to seven hours of overtime per week between 2001 and 2005, and approximately eight hours of overtime per week in 2006 and 2007. Calculating her overtime on a weekly basis (omitting holidays and days off), Magnoni estimates that she worked about one hour of overtime per week in 2006 and 2007, and “more than that” in 2003, 2004, and 2005. [ ]
In or about November 1997, while employed at S & L, Magnoni formed a business entity named Contessa Legal Process (“Contessa”), which provided process serving and court filing services. S & L was one of Contessa’s many clients. Though Contessa was not incorporated at the time relevant to this action, Magnoni was the sole proprietor of Contessa and S & L made all payments for Contessa’s services directly to Magnoni. For Contessa’s services, S & L paid Magnoni $41,800 in 2005; $49,500 in 2006; and $11,820 through approximately April of 2007. S & L concedes that while Magnoni was S & L’s employee with respect to her paralegal responsibilities, she was an independent contractor with respect to her process
Defendants argue that Magnoni is exempt from coverage by the FLSA because the total annual compensation she received from S & L, when combining her S & L salary and the payments she received from S & L for Contessa’s services, was in excess of $100,000 for 2005 and 2006, and she was projected to receive approximately $125,000 in 2007.”
The Court discussed the applicable law and applied same to the case, noting Defendants CONCEDED that Plaintiff’s work performed for Contessa, was as an independent contractor not an employee.
“Under a regulation issued by the Department of Labor in 2004:
An employee with total annual compensation of at least $100,000 is deemed exempt under section 13(a)(1) of the Act if the employee customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee identified in subparts B, C or D of this part.
29 C.F.R. § 541.601(a). The determination of an employee’s “total annual compensation,” may include “commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses and other nondiscretionary compensation earned during a 52-week period.” Id. § 541.601(b)(1). However, the language of § 541.601 leaves no doubt that it applies only to an employee’s total annual compensation; indeed, under the FLSA, independent contractors are exempt from overtime requirements. See, e.g., Van Asdale v. Apollo Assocs., Ltd., No. 6:08-CV-531-ORL-19KRS, 2009 WL 36419, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 6, 2009) (“Independent contractors are exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.”); see also Schwind v. EW & Assocs., Inc., 357 F.Supp.2d 691, 700 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (analyzing whether the plaintiff was an employee or independent contractor because “[t]he overtime provisions of the FLSA … apply only to individuals who are ’employees.’ “). Therefore, Magnoni’s compensation for her independent contractor responsibilities cannot be considered part of her total annual compensation as S & L’s employee under the FLSA.
Defendants concede that Magnoni’s process serving and court filing services on behalf of Contessa were rendered in her capacity as an independent contractor, not in her capacity as an employee of S & L as a paralegal. (See, e.g., Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, dated March 27, 2009 (“Defs.’ Mem.”), at 1 (stating that Magnoni “was both an employee performing legal assistant responsibilities for S & L as well as an independent contractor providing significant process serving and court filing services for S & L and many other law firms”); id. at 2 (describing Magnoni’s total annual compensation to include compensation received “both as an employee and an independent contractor”); id. at 3 (describing Magnoni’s process serving and court filing services as independent from her paralegal responsibilities); id. at 10 (characterizing Magnoni as being compensated as “both S & L’s employee and S & L’s independent contractor”); id. at 15 (describing Magnoni as “operat[ing] a separate business” while at S & L); Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, dated April 29, 2009 (“Defs.’ Reply”), at 4 (describing Magnoni as being compensated as “both an employee and as an independent contractor”).) Thus, any compensation Magnoni received as an independent contractor for the services provided by Contessa was not part of her total annual compensation as S & L’s employee.
Defendants attempt to avoid this outcome by arguing that the Department of Labor’s regulations define “compensation” broadly. However, Defendants do not direct the Court to any case where an “employee[‘s] … total annual compensation,” 29 C.F.R. § 541.601(a), included payment for services rendered as an independent contractor. This absence of authority is unsurprising; because independent contractors are exempt from the FLSA, it would be antithetical to the spirit of the FLSA to consider payment received as an independent contractor to constitute “employee” compensation, particularly given the mandate that exemptions should be narrowly construed against employers. See In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litig., 593 F.Supp.2d 637, 643 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (“Due to the remedial nature of the FLSA’s overtime requirement, … exemptions should be ‘narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them and their application limited to those establishments plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit.’ ” (quoting Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distribs., Inc., 300 F.3d 217, 222 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392 (1960)))); see also Henry v. Quicken Loans Inc., No. 2:04-cv-40346, 2009 WL 596180, at *10 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 9, 2009) (“Defendants bear the burden of establishing the applicability of the highly compensated employee exemption because exemptions are to be narrowly construed and limited to those establishments plainly and unmistakably within the terms and spirit of the FLSA.”)
It would unquestionably violate the terms and spirit of the FLSA to construe an “employee’s” total annual compensation to include payment for separate services provided solely as an independent contractor, given that independent contractors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime provisions. While Defendants argue that the Court should not delve into the details of Magnoni’s paralegal duties in order to determine her total annual compensation, Defendants’ concessions leave no doubt that regardless of what Magnoni’s responsibilities were as S & L’s employee, they did not include her process serving and court filing services. Indeed, on the 1099-MISC IRS forms Defendants submitted to the Court, S & L consistently listed “[ ]Magnoni d/b/a/ Contessa Legal Process” as receiving “nonemployee compensation” for which no state or federal income tax was withheld. (Certification of Thomas E. Chase, Esq., dated March 27, 2009 (“Chase Cert.”), Ex. D); see also Thibault v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., Civ. No. 07-0200, 2008 WL 4877158, at *6 (E.D.La. Nov. 10, 2008) (holding that employer’s lack of salary withholdings on 1099-MISC form indicated that plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee).
Because Defendants concede that Magnoni’s Contessa-related process serving and court filing services were conducted in her capacity as an independent contractor, and narrowly construing the application of FLSA exemptions against S & L, compensation for such services cannot be included in the determination of Magnoni’s total annual compensation as S & L’s employee under the FLSA. Magnoni therefore is not exempt as a highly compensated employee under 29 C.F.R. § 541.601(a), as her total annual compensation as S & L’s employee never exceeded $100,000.”
W.D.La.: Employer’s Suit Seeking Declaratory Judgment That Employees Are Properly Deemed Exempt Dismissed; Subject Matter Jurisdiction Lacking, Because No Case Or Controversy
City of Monroe v. Otwell
The case was before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, recommending that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because there was no case or controversy. The employer had filed the instant declaratory judgment complaint against 19 higher ranking members of the Monroe Police Department (the “Police Officer Defendants”). The City sought a judgment against the Police Officer Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that they meet the executive and/or administrative exemptions from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Finding that the case did not present a live case or controversy, the Court dismissed the case.
On June 17, 2009, the Court (sua sponte) questioned whether there was appropriate subject matter jurisdiction in this matter because the complaint contained no allegations to suggest that there is any current dispute between the City and the Police Officer Defendants. (June 17, 2009, Order [doc. # 12] ). The Court then afforded plaintiff 15 days to file a brief, together with appropriate, competent evidence, to establish the court’s jurisdiction to retain the matter. Id. The City was cautioned that if it failed to so comply, or if jurisdiction was found to be lacking, then dismissal would be recommended. Id. It appears from the text of the Order that the parties did not file briefs on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.
Adopting the Magistrate’s reasoning (from the report and recommendation), finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, because there was no dispute between the parties, the Court discussed the applicable law:
“Federal courts are obliged to examine the basis for the exercise of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Smith v. Texas Children’s Hospital, 172 F.3d 923, 925 (5th Cir.1999). A lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Giles v. Nylcare Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir.1999). Furthermore, a court must raise the issue sua sponte if it discovers that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
‘A federal court may not issue a declaratory judgment unless there exists an actual case or controversy.” Columbia Cas. Co. v. Georgia & Florida RailNet, Inc., 542 F.3d 106, 110 (5th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). The burden is on the party seeking a declaratory judgment to establish the existence of an actual case or controversy, i.e. “a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. See, Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Intern., Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 113 S.Ct. 1967 (1993) (citation omitted); Vantage Trailers, Inc. v. Beall Corp., 567 F.3d 745, 2009 WL 1262388 (5th Cir. May 8, 2009) (citing MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127, 127 S.Ct. 764 (2007)). If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, then the court lacks jurisdiction. Hosein v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir.2006).
Despite having been afforded an opportunity to so, the City has not endeavored to establish that its request for declaratory relief against the Police Officer Defendants presents an actual case or controversy sufficient to support subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the undersigned is compelled to find that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to retain plaintiff’s remaining claim. See Hosein, supra. Of course, in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, dismissal is required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).”
Thus, the Court dismissed the case for want of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice.
S.D.Fla.: Business-to-Business Merchants’ Motion For Summary Judgment On “Retail” Exemption Denied; Defendants Failed To Plead The Exemption As An Affirmative Defense And Lack A Retail Concept, Because They Only Provide Services To Other Merchants
Ebersole v. American Bancard, LLC
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting that they are exempt from the FLSA as a “retail and service establishment,” as well as because Plaintiff has not presented sufficient facts to demonstrate that they were aware of Plaintiff’s alleged uncompensated overtime work.
The Court recited the following fact, as pertinent to its inquiry as to whether Defendants were a “retail and service establishment”:
“American Capital Advance, LLC (“ACA”) is a Florida limited liability company located in Boca Raton, Florida. ACA provides the services to merchants of business cash advances, also referred to as accounts receivable financing or accounts receivable factoring, to qualified businesses. American Bancard, LLC (“AB”) is a Florida limited liability company located in Boca Raton, Florida, and is ACA’s parent company. As a merchant services provider, AB’s primary focus is to make available to merchants the service of credit and debit/check card processing services and processing equipment.”
The Court then held that Defendants are not a “retail and service establishment”:
“Defendants argue that they are exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA because they are a retail and service establishment under § 207(i) of the FLSA. Defendant bears the burden of establishing that they are entitled to the exemption. Alvarez Perez v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 515 F.3d 1150, 1156 (11th Cir.2008). No statutory definition of “retail or service establishment” currently exists.
When Congress passed Section 207(i) in 1961, it specifically stated that the phrase “retail or service establishment” was to be given the same meaning as the phrase in Section 213(a)(2). The definition of this phrase in Section 213(a)(2), however, was repealed in 1990. Nevertheless, courts have found that this definition is still applicable to Section 207(i) since no Congressional intent has been shown to modify the definition. See, e.g.,
29 C.F.R. §§ 779.301, 779.312; Reich v. Delcorp, Inc., 3 F.3d 1181, 1183 (8th Cir.1993); Reich v. Cruises Only, Inc., No. 95-cv-660, 1997 WL 1507504, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 5, 1997). Section 213(a)(2) defined a retail or service establishment as: (1) an establishment 75 per centum of whose annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services (or of both) is not for resale and (2) is recognized as retail sales or services in the particular industry. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(2) (repealed 1990).
Defendants claim to fall within the retail and services exception “since they meet the basic requirements of subsections (1) and (2) [above] and are recognized in the credit industry as a service provider. ACA provides the service to merchants of business cash advances … As a merchant services provider, AB’s primary focus is to make available to merchants the service of credit and debit/check card processing services and processing equipment.” DE 19 at 5-6.
Federal regulations clarify that this exemption applies only to a “traditional local retail or service establishment.” 29 C.F.R. § 779.315. Such establishments must be part of industries that have a “retail concept.” Id. § 779.316. One provision explains:
Typically a retail or service establishment is one which sells goods or services to the general public. It serves the everyday needs of the community in which it is located. The retail or service establishment performs a function in the business organization of the Nation which is at the very end of the stream ofdistribution, disposing in small quantities of the products and skills of such organization and does not take part in the manufacturing process. Id. § 779.318. Defendants sell machines and services to merchants. Defendants’ industry does not have a “retail concept,” and Defendants do not claim they sell goods or services to the general public.
The Eleventh Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court requires “that courts closely circumscribe the FLSA’s exceptions.” Nicholson v. World Bus. Network, Inc., 105 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir.1997). And the exemption “is to be applied only to those clearly and unmistakably within the terms and spirit of the exemption.” Brock v. Norman’s Country Market, Inc., 835 F.2d 823, 826 (11th Cir.1988) (quotation marks and cite omitted); Nicholson v. World Business Network, Inc., 105 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir.1997). Therefore, narrowly construing the claimed exemption to the FLSA overtime requirement, this Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated, as a matter of law, that they are retail or service establishments exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay provisions. Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1269 (11th Cir.2008).”
M.D.Fla.: Court Defines “General Household Work” And Denies Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment Regarding Companionship Exemption; Defendant’s Proposed Broad Reading Of The Exemption Rejected
Anglin v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.
This case was before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argued that Plaintiff was exempt from overtime under the FLSA’s companionship exemption and was not entitled to overtime compensation under the FLSA. The Plaintiff argued that because she spent more than 20% of her time performing general housework and other work unrelated to patient treatment, she fell outside the exemption and should be paid at an overtime rate for all hours over 40 in a workweek. In denying Defendant’s Motion, the Court also clarified the type(s) of work that qualify for allocation towards the 20% “general household work” versus the work that should be allocated to the 80% companionship work.
The Court explained, “[i]n this case, Maxim argues that the FLSA’s healthcare companion exemption applies to Plaintiff’s employment, precluding her entitlement to overtime. See 29 U.S.C. § 213. The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) mandates that “no employer shall employ any of her employees … for a workweek longer than forty hours unless such employee receives compensation for her employment in excess of the hours … specified at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which she is employed.” 29 U .S.C. § 207(a)(1); Reich v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 28 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir.1994). The term “employ” is defined as “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). To “suffer or permit to work” an employer must have knowledge of the work being performed. Fox v. Summit King Mines, 143 F. 926, 932 (9th Cir.1944). The FLSA mandates that employees, in general, receive one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty per week. Armitage v. Dolphin Plumbing & Mechanical, LLC, 510 F.Supp.2d 763, 768-69 (M.D.Fla.2007) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1)).
In 1974, Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to include many “domestic service” employees not previously subject to its minimum wage and maximum hour requirements. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 127 S.Ct. 2339, 2344 (2007) (citing Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1974). Congress simultaneously created an exemption that excluded from FLSA coverage certain subsets of employees “employed in domestic service employment,” including companionship workers Id. (citing 29 U.S .C. § 213(a)(15)).
Federal law exempts from the overtime provisions “employee[s] employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary [of Labor] ).” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(15). The Department of Labor defines “companionship services” as:
[T]hose services which provide fellowship, care, and protection for a person who, because of advanced age or physical or mental infirmity, cannot care for his or her own needs. Such services may include household work related to the care of the aged or infirm person such as meal preparation, bed making, washing of clothes, and other similar services. They may also include the performance of general household work. Provided, however, [t]hat such work is incidental, i.e., does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked. The term “companionship services” does not include services relating to the care and protection of the aged or infirm which require and are performed by trained personnel, such as a registered or practical nurse.29 C.F.R. § 552.6. “The companion must perform the services with respect to the aged or infirm persons and not generally to other persons.” 29 C.F.R. § 552.106. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that Department of Labor regulations promulgated under the FLSA as controlling authority. Buckner v. Florida Habilitation Network, 489 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir.2007).
Like all exemptions under the FLSA, the companionship exemption must be “narrowly construed.” Buckner, 489 F.3d at 1154 (citing Mitchell v. Ky. Fin. Co., 359 U.S. 290, 295 (1959)). The Act should be interpreted liberally in the employee’s favor and the defendant must prove applicability of an exemption by “clear and affirmative evidence.” Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir.1992) (internal citations omitted). The employer has the burden of showing that it is entitled to the exemption. Klinedinst v. Swift Invs., Inc., 260 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir.2001). The exemption applies even though Plaintiff is employed by a service agency, rather than directly by the patient or his family. Long Island Care, 127 S.Ct. at 2344.
The healthcare companionship exemption allows for general household work as long as the general household work is “incidental” or does not exceed 20% of the total weekly hours. Aside from the vague description in the FLSA regulations-work provided for the “benefit of the entire household rather than for the care of the patient”-no precise definition of “general household work” is provided by the act, the department’s regulation, or Eleventh Circuit case law. 29 C.F.R. § 552.106.”
Turning to a definition of the term “general household work,” the Court stated:
“Plaintiff relies on the Utah Supreme Court’s opinion in Bowler v. Deseret Village Association, Inc., 922 P.2d 8 (1996). In Bowler, the court found that activities including “general maintenance services, including cleaning laundry areas, general household cleaning (through use of mop, duster, and vacuum), washing vehicles, cleaning the garage, and maintaining the yards and grounds,” while providing service to the residents receiving companionship services, also provided service to the entire community; therefore, these activities were properly classified as general household work and counted against the 20% threshold. Id. at 15. Plaintiff argues based on the holding in Bowler that the activities must solely benefit the patient/client, to the exclusion of other household members, or they are characterized as general household work.
Other courts considering the type of work that a CNA performs have held that their typical work falls within the healthcare companion exception. See, e.g., Salyer v. Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, 83 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir.1996) (woman who gave medication and helped disabled dress, bathe, ambulate, and clean provided “companionship services” under FLSA); Cox v. Acme Health Services, Inc., 55 F.3d 1304, 1306 (7th Cir.1995) (CNA who performed therapy and nursing services, personal care, ambulation, exercise, household services, and medication assistance performed “companionship services” within the exemption); McCune v. Oregon Senior Services Div., 894 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1990) (CNAs who performed cleaning, cooking, hygiene and medical care held to perform “companionship services” under FLSA). The court in McCune considered what kind of work qualified as general housework and distinguished between services related to patient care and other household work: “Dusting or cleaning either [the bedroom or living] room appears to be routine, general household work, rather than work related to the individual. Cleaning a spill by the client in either room, by contrast, would be non-routine care more related to the individual than to the general household, and would not be included in the twenty percent figure.” 894 F.2d at 1111.
It is undisputed that 90% of Plaintiff s shifts were dedicated to the care of two Maxim patients, Angela Houston and Clyde Mallory. Doc. No. 32 at 5 n. 5. Plaintiff admitted during her testimony that she spent her time caring directly for these patients by: bathing them, preparing meals for then, feeding them, grocery shopping, assisting them with prescribed medication needs, cleaning for them, changing their bedding, transporting them, and washing their clothes. Doc. No. 32-3 (Anglin Dep. at 84-85).
Maxim cites to a Statement of Facts “(SOF 2, 3, 5-6, 12)” as if it is a separate document, and no such document is in the Record. See Doc. No. 32 at 10. If Maxim is referring to various pages within its Motion for Summary Judgment as the “Statement of Facts,” the cites refer to pages throughout the document including pages containing argument, and such a practice would be extremely confusing. A statement of facts generally is a stand-alone document which contains sequential paragraphs to which the Court and opposing counsel can easily refer. That is not the case here, and portions of Maxim’s argument are not supported with citation to evidence in the record to support its points. Plaintiff also noted the lack of a traditional statement of facts that would have been much easier to use. Doc. No. 42 at 2 n. 2.
However, Plaintiff argues that she additionally “regularly spent” more than 20% of her time each week performing general household work, and other work unrelated to the care of Defendant’s patients, at the patient’s homes.” Doc. No. 42 at 4 (citing Anglin Dep. at 191, 204, 223). Plaintiff characterized the type of work she did as that of a “maid” or “housekeeper” to the entire household when serving as a companion to patients Clyde Mallory and Angela Houston. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 170-71). Plaintiff testified that when there was some “downtime,” when she was not required to perform duties for patients, Plaintiff would perform tasks for others in the household, including: daily laundry; daily cooking; daily washing dishes; the heavy cleaning (dusting/vacuuming/mopping) of the patient’s entire house 2-3 times per week, including those portions which the patient never frequented; taking patient’s family members to the (non-patient) family member’s doctor’s appointments; shopping for the entire household, including separate lists in many cases for non-patient members of the household one to two times per week; daily making the bed of everyone in the patient’s household; changing the linens on the bed of everyone in the patient’s household; taking out the entire household’s trash out one to two times per week; painting portions of a patient’s home; and feeding and cleaning up after the household pets. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 68, 79, 82, 90-91, 93, 96, 121, 123, 129, 177-78, 180-81, 183, 185-87, 195, 197-99, 201-03, 205-12, 216-217, 219-221, 233, 239, 252, 255, 273, 342, 374-75).
Both of Plaintiff’s two main patients lived with elderly parents, which, she testified, created situations in which Plaintiff had to do work for more than just the patients. For one of the patients, Angela Houston (with Down’s syndrome and Cerebral Palsy), whose mother was seventy-seven years old and very sick, Plaintiff was not just taking care of Angela, but also her mother Joanne Gibson/Houston too. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 69, 206). When Angela’s mother was in the hospital for one month, Plaintiff stayed with Angela around the clock, but did not get paid for the hours from midnight until 8:00 a.m. because Angela was a Medicaid case and Medicaid did not pay for a companion to stay overnight. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 69, 121). The other patient, Clyde Mallory (a paraplegic requiring round the clock care), lived with his father who was 97 years old and “would mess up everything.” Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 202). Clyde Mallory would make frequent reports to the Maxim office-“all kinds of reports, one right after another” complaining about the “house not being kept up by the other CNAs that worked there.” Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 233). Maxim submitted the affidavit of Mallory which described Plaintiff as a hard worker who did a “very good job” and occasionally vacuumed the house, cleaned the kitchen, and help and cook for his father in the kitchen; however, Mallory’s opinion was that Plaintiff did not spend 20% of her time on tasks “unrelated to his care.” Doc. No. 32-6 (Mallory Aff.). There is a genuine issue of material fact as the to amount of household work Plaintiff performed for other than the infirm individuals for whom she cared.
Maxim argues that Plaintiff’s list of tasks is contradicted by her affirmative answer to the leading question, “So 100% of the time you were working for Maxim, you [were] doing things in order to provide care for the patients, right?” Doc. No. 32 at 6 (citing Anglin Dep. at 84-85). The precise nature of the work that Plaintiff did to “provide care for the patients” or others in the household is at the very heart of this FLSA dispute, and Plaintiff’s very general affirmative answer does not foreclose her subsequent more specific explanation that she performed other household work for patient’s family members because she had specific instructions from her supervisors, to do “whatever” required to make Maxim’s patients happy. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 97, 104, 124, 276).
Although Plaintiff testified as to the estimated time she devoted to the tasks for other family members, Maxim in excruciating detail lists its calculation of the total time that Plaintiff estimated in order to make her testimony appear overstated. See Doc. No. 32 at 17-18. Notably, Maxim’s supplies no evidence from Plaintiff’s supervisors, i.e., the Registered Nurses, that Plaintiff did not perform the general household work that she alleges; Maxim supplies only Plaintiffs job description and a general affidavit from Maxim’s account manager, Melissa White. Doc. No. 32-2.
Maxim’s other argument is, that even if Plaintiff performed household work for patients’ family members and directly for patient-care, the other individuals, Mallory Sr. and Angela’s mother, were also infirm and the companionship exemption would have applied to them regardless of whether Plaintiff was paid extra for her services. That argument really cuts the other way, in that if Maxim admits there were other members of patients’ households too infirm to do the housework, her testimony that she was the only one performing the housework and pet care for the household is more credible. Moreover, it is the type of work performed for other than a patient, and not the health of the additional family members receiving household work services, that determines whether the 20% threshold of general household work has been reached.
Maxim appears to argue that any of the tasks related to the patients’ family members, such as vacuuming, sweeping, or mopping in other family member’s part of the houses still were provided for the patient’s direct care because such things were necessary to “maintain the sterile environment for the patients.” Taken to the extreme, Maxim’s definition of “sterile environment” would include every type of household work and pet care, and that is clearly not the intent of the regulation.”
After discussing the “general household duties” test, the Court went on to discuss the concept of volunteering versus work under the FLSA:
“Maxim also contends that Plaintiff changed her deposition testimony after initially stating that she “volunteered” to stay with “the mother of one of Maxim’s patients when she fell gravely ill.” Doc. No. 32 at 5 (citing Anglin Dep. 68-70). That is not Plaintiffs testimony. Plaintiff testified that because she felt close to the family and “there was nobody” else, Plaintiff “voluntarily” stayed with the patient while the patient’s mother was in the hospital. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 70). Maxim contends that Plaintiff performed the extra nine hours as a “volunteer” and is not entitled to be paid for those hours as a matter of law.
As to whether Plaintiff’s staying with Angela twenty-four hours nine more than she was paid for was employment or “volunteer” time, the FLSA provides a very general definition to “employ.” It defines “to employ” as expansively as to “suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). The FLSA does not define “work.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.6. However, time spent doing work not requested by the employer, but permitted, is generally considered work time, since the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employees are continuing to work and the employer is benefitting from the work being done. See Reich v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State of Alabama, 28 F.3d 1076, 1082 (11th Cir.1994) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 785.11). The FLSA places the duty on management to exercise control and see that work is not performed if the employer does not want it performed; an employer cannot sit back and accept the benefits of an employee’s work without considering the time spent to be hours worked. Id.
In this case, Maxim’s use of the term “volunteer” and Plaintiff’s statement that she “voluntarily” watched Angela for an extra nine hours are not equivalent use of the terms because, as Plaintiff points out, Maxim’s rules prohibited Plaintiff from leaving Angela’s home without being relieved by another caregiver. Doc. No. 42-4 (White Dep. at 89-90); Doc. No. 41-5 (Morgan Dep. at 49, 55, 57, 59). If Plaintiff had left Angela, despite the fact that there was no other caregiver to relieve her, Maxim would have deemed it “abandonment” of the patient and Plaintiff would have been subject to discipline by Maxim, for failing to follow Maxim’s policies, rules and procedures. Doc. No. 41-5 (Morgan Dep. at 49, 59, 60-61). Maxim did not send anyone to relieve Plaintiff during this one month period. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 114). Instead, Melissa White, Anglin’s supervisor, told her not to record the extra nine hours per day, because Maxim would not be paying her for it and she would be “volunteering” her time, since Maxim was not getting paid for it. Doc. No. 42-2 (Anglin Dep. at 225-228). Maxim was clearly aware of the situation because the company requested that Medicaid provide authorization for more CNA hours-for the most time possible-so it would be reimbursed for more of Plaintiff’s work. Doc. No. 42-4 (White Dep. at 80-84, 91).
Maxim argues that Plaintiff’s decision “not to sit idle and while away the day … waiting for another patient need to arise while she was at rest” led her to “voluntarily” engage in other tasks at the same time she was acting as a companion for the infirm individual. Doc. No. 32 at 25. Maxim’s final argument is that Plaintiff spent time “multitasking,” simultaneously performing exempt functions with non-exempt functions, and the non-exempt time should not be counted toward an exception to the exemption. Doc. No. 32 at 24. In support, Maxim cites inapposite cases that considering the management exemption, not the healthcare companion exemption, which on its faces says nothing about not counting time spent “multitasking.” To the contrary, the plain language of the regulations mandate that in calculating “general household work,” the Court confirm such work “does not exceed 20 percent of the total weekly hours worked” and is “not generally” performed for “other persons.” 29 C.F.R. § 552.6; 29 C.F.R. § 552.106. The regulations say nothing about carving out the “multi-tasked” work performed by the companion. Moreover, such an interpretation would not be construing the Act “liberally in the employee’s favor” and would certainly reduce an employer’s burden to prove “applicability of an exemption by clear and affirmative evidence.” See Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802 (11th Cir.1992). Maxim’s remaining arguments relate to Plaintiff’s credibility, which are decisions left to the finder of fact.
Based on the evidence presented by Plaintiff, there are genuine issues of material fact as to the amount and extent of the general household tasks performed by Plaintiff; thus, Maxim has failed to establish as a matter of law that Plaintiff qualified under the healthcare companion exemption.”
N.D.Ga.: “Design Consultant” For Furniture Store, Paid Strictly Commissions, Retail Exempt Under 7(i)
Lee v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc.
Plaintiff brought this case based on 200-250 hours she claimed to have worked in overtime for Defendant, which she was not paid for. Defendant maintained the Plaintiff was subject to the so-called retail exemption of 7(i). Before the Court was Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the retail exemption issue. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion, holding that Plaintiff was paid under a bona fide commission plan throughout her employment with Defendant, despite the fact that she never received anything other than her bi-weekly draw.
The Court relied on the following facts:
“Defendant Ethan Allen owns and operates Ethan Allen Design Centers (“Design Centers”) throughout the United States. These Design Centers are retail establishments, which sell Ethan Allen home furnishing products. Plaintiff began working as a Design Consultant on August 6, 2006, at Ethan Allen’s Peachtree City, Georgia Design Center. Plaintiff worked as a Design Consultant throughout her employment with Ethan Allen. As a Design Consultant, Plaintiff’s primary job responsibility is selling Ethan Allen home furnishing products. Design Consultants, including Plaintiff, are paid on a commission basis. They are never paid a salary. After an initial two week training period, Plaintiff began making sales and earning commissions. Ethan Allen paid Plaintiff according to its written Design Consultant Compensation Plan (“Compensation Plan”). Pursuant to this Compensation Plan, Design Consultants earn a minimum of 7% commission on net written sales per fiscal month. The commission increases to 8% if the Design Consultant has sales of at least $45,000, 8.5% at $55,000, and 9% at $70,000. Design Consultants earn a commission on every dollar of their sales; there are no caps on the amount of commissions a Design Consultant can earn.
During the first four months of employment, Ethan Allen pays its Design Consultants through a non-recoverable, bi-weekly draw. Every month Ethan Allen reduces the Design Consultant’s commissions by the amount of the draw. The Design Consultant earns commissions on sales that exceed her draw. Because the draw is non-recoverable, Design Consultants do not have to repay Ethan Allen if the amount of their draw exceeds their commissions during the month. After the initial four month period, however, Ethan Allen pays its Design Consultants through a bi-weekly, recoverable draw. Accordingly, if a Design Consultant does not earn enough in commissions to cover the draw, the Design Consultant carries forward a deficit, which she owes to Ethan Allen. Ethan Allen then reduces any deficit from prior months by the amount that her commissions exceeded the draw.
Plaintiff received a bi-weekly draw of approximately $1,100. Although Plaintiff earned commissions that exceeded her draw in four of the fourteen months she was employed at Ethan Allen, she never received an additional commission payment beyond her draw because throughout her employment at Ethan Allen she maintained a cumulative deficit as a result of her failure to earn enough commissions to cover her draw in prior months. When Ethan Allen terminated, Plaintiff she had an accumulated deficit of $4,610.14.”
Discussing the retail exemption, and granting Defendant’s Motion the Court stated, “The retail or service establishment exemption applies where: (1) the employee was employed by a retail or service establishment; (2) the employee’s regular rate of pay was more than one and one-half times the minimum hourly rate; and (3) more than half of the employee’s compensation comes from commissions. 29 U.S.C. § 207(i); 29 C.F.R. § 779.412; see also Schwind v. EW & Assocs. Inc., 371 F. Supp 2d 560, 563 (S.D.N.Y.2005). As the employer, Defendant bears the burden of proving the applicability of this exemption by ” ‘clear and affirmative evidence.’ ” Klinedinst, 260 F.3d at 1254 (quoting Birdwell v. City of Gadsden, 970 F.2d 802, 805 (11th Cir.1992)). Moreover, the Court construes exemptions from the overtime provisions of the FLSA narrowly against the employer. Birdwell, 970 F.2d at 905.
Plaintiff concedes that Defendant is a retail establishment and that her regular rate of pay was in excess of one and one-half times the minimum hourly rate applicable to her, thus satisfying the first two prongs of the test. (Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 5; Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 5.) The dispute in this case centers around the final requirement.
To rely on the retail or service establishment exemption, Defendant must demonstrate that more than half of Plaintiff’s compensation for a representative period of at least one month represents commissions on goods or services. See29 U.S.C. § 207(i).Section 207(i) provides that:
In determining the proportion of compensation representing commissions, all earnings resulting from the application of a bona fide commission rate shall be deemed commissions on goods and services without regard to whether the computed commissions exceed the draw or guarantee.
29 U.S.C. § 207(i) (emphasis added). Accordingly, in determining whether more than half of Plaintiff’s compensation came from commissions, the Court must also determine whether the commissions paid to Plaintiff were the result of “the application of a bona fide commission rate.”Id. Provided that the employer’s compensation plan is a bona fide plan, any compensation calculated as commissions according to the plan will count as commissions, even if the amount of commissions may not equal or exceed the guarantee or draw in some weeks. 29 C.F.R. § 779.416(b); Erichs v. Venator Group, Inc., 128 F. Supp 2d 1255, 1259 (N.D.Cal.2001). Conversely, even where an employer characterizes the entirety of an employee’s earnings as commissions, the employer may not rely on the retail and service establishment exemption unless the commissions are calculated pursuant to a bona fide commission plan. See generally Erichs, 128 F. Supp 2d at 1260 (explaining that “some payment plans that apparently are commission plans on their face may reveal themselves to be something different upon closer inspection.”). Although Ethan Allen categorized 100% of Plaintiff’s earnings as commissions, Plaintiff contends that Ethan Allen cannot demonstrate that more than half of her compensation came from commissions because her earnings did not result from the application of a bona fide commission rate.
Congress did not define the meaning of “bona fide commission rate.” Herman v. Suwannee Sifty Stores, Inc., 19 F. Supp 2d 1365, 1369 (M.D.Ga.1998) (Sands, J.); Erichs, 128 F. Supp 2d at 1259. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “bona fide” as “made in good faith.” BLACKS’S LAW DICTIONARY 186 (8th ed.2004). Courts have applied this definition to the term bona fide commission rate in Section 207(i).See Herman, 19 F. Supp 2d at 1370 (“Congress … provided that to use this commission-based exception, the commission rate must be set in good faith.”). Therefore, “[t]he inquiry is whether the employer set the commission rate in good faith.” Enrichs, 128 F. Supp 2d at 1259.
The Code of Federal Regulations provides two examples of commission rates that are not bona fide. See29 C.F.R. § 779.416(c). First, a commission rate is not bona fide where “the employee, in fact, always or almost always earns the same fixed amount of compensation for each workweek (as would be the case where the computed commissions seldom or never equal or exceed the amount of the draw or guarantee).”Id.Second, an employer’s commission plan is not bona fide where “the employee receives a regular payment constituting nearly his entire earnings which is expressed in terms of a percentage of the sales which the establishment … can always be expected to make with only a slight addition to his wages based upon a greatly reduced percentage applied to the sales above the expected quota.”Id.
These two examples are not exhaustive. See Erichs, 128 F. Supp 2d at 1260. The Court must examine Defendant’s particular commission rate and determine whether the plan is bona fide or set in good faith. As the Court explained in Herman:
Congress did not state that any commission rate was fine … Instead, it limited the exception to ensure employers would create a commission rate in good faith. Since Congress did not specify a definition of ‘bona fide [,]’ … the DOL did so through section 779.416(c). The DOL’s interpretation is consistent with the purpose of passing an exception to overtime by paying commissions. The whole premise behind earning a commission is that the amount of sales would increase the rate of pay. Thus, employees may elect to work more hours so they can increase their sales, and in turn, their earnings. When a commission plan never affects the rate of pay, the purpose behind using a commission rate also fails.
Herman, 19 F. Supp 2d at 1370;
Erichs, 128 F. Supp 2d at 1260. By requiring that a commission rate is bona fide, “Congress apparently envisions a smell test, one that reaches beyond the formal structure of the commission rate and into its actual effects and the purpose behind it.” Erichs, 128 F. Supp 2d at 1260.
The commission rate in this case passes this “smell test.” Defendant set the commission rate in good faith; the commission rate was not a superficial attempt to categorize Plaintiff’s earnings as commissions in order to avoid having to pay her overtime compensation. Cf. Id. at 1260-61 (finding that the defendant’s commission rate plan was not made in good faith because it was an attempt to replicate the prior, “legally nebulous” plan and would not increase sales); Herman, 19 F. Supp 2d at 1372 (holding that store managers who never received more than the guaranteed rate or received more than the guaranteed rate only once a year were not exempt under the retail and service exemption). Plaintiff’s compensation was entirely commission based. She received a commission ranging from 7% to 9% depending on the volume of her sales. Every two weeks, Plaintiff received a recoverable draw. After the initial four months of employment, if Plaintiff did not have enough sales to cover the draw, she went into deficit. Ethan Allen then deducted any earnings from commissions exceeding the draw from this deficit.
Ethan Allen’s compensation plan provided Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to elect to work more hours to increase her sales and earnings. Plaintiff’s monthly commissions exceeded her draw four times. Although Defendant used these funds to reduce Plaintiff’s accumulated deficit from prior months, the fact that Plaintiff could exceed her draw by increasing sales demonstrates her ability to impact her compensation by increasing sales. Unlike the example in the Code of Federal Regulations, Plaintiff did not always or almost always earn the same fixed amount each week; Plaintiff’s earnings fluctuated based on the amount of her sales. Because all of Plaintiff’s earnings resulted from the application of a bona fide commission rate, and are commissions within the meaning of Section 207(i), Defendant met its burden of demonstrating that one of the exemptions to the FLSA’s general overtime requirements applies to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment [# 91].”
11th Cir.: Bus Drivers Exempt From FLSA Under Motor Carrier (MCA) Exemption; Bus Company’s Airport-to-Seaport Shuttle Routes Shared A Practical Continuity Of Movement Due To Interstate Travel Of Cruise Line Customers Shuttled
Walters v. American Coach Lines Of Miami, Inc.
This appeal required the Court to determine whether Appellants, who are all current or former bus drivers for American Coach Lines of Miami (“ACLM”), were subject to a provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., exempting from the FLSA’s overtime requirements any employees who fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation under the Motor Carrier Act (“MCA”). The district court found Appellants to be eligible for this “motor carrier” exemption and therefore granted the portion of ACLM’s motion for summary judgment addressing Appellants’ claims for overtime wages. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs and hearing oral argument, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.
The Court stated the relevant facts to its inquiry as follows:
“ACLM is a private motor carrier providing for-hire ground transportation for passengers that holds itself out to be an “interstate” motor carrier. It is licensed with the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”), holds all the authorizations from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) necessary to be an interstate passenger motor carrier, and has been issued a DOT number. Since 2004, federal transportation agencies have audited ACLM at least twice, on at least one occasion in combination with Florida authorities. ACLM also requires its drivers to meet DOT safety standards, which Florida has adopted as well. See
Fla. Stat. § 316.302. ACLM does not pay its drivers overtime wages.
ACLM primarily provides transportation within the state of Florida, though some of its business is between Florida and other states. Much of ACLM’s revenue comes from shuttling cruise ship passengers between the Miami and Fort Lauderdale airports and local hotels and cruise ship ports. Since September 2006, ACLM has had a written contract to be the sole provider of such transportation for Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines (“Royal Caribbean”) during daytime hours. ACLM asserts that between April 2006 and December 2007 it transported more than 500,000 Royal Caribbean passengers, trips that resulted in over $4.4 million in revenues. Appellants contend that there is no proof that ACLM provided such transport prior to September 2006, though they appear not to dispute the total revenue figure. In addition to this written arrangement with Royal Caribbean, ACLM maintains that it earned over $700,000 from earlier informal agreements to provide similar shuttle transportation for Costa Cruises and Princess Cruises. Appellants likewise dispute the existence of such arrangements.
Under ACLM’s contract with Royal Caribbean, it provides ground transportation for passengers who book vacation packages through travel agents or Royal Caribbean. For those passengers, ground transportation is included as part of the overall package and is not priced or itemized separately. Passengers who do not pre-purchase ground transportation can request shuttle service when they arrive at the airport or cruise ship terminal, which will then be charged to that passenger’s Royal Caribbean account. Under the agreement, Royal Caribbean provides ACLM with weekly manifests listing the expected time, date, and number of passengers for each shuttle trip. Royal Caribbean employees greet passengers on arrival, contact ACLM when a bus is required, and collect vouchers from passengers before they board the bus. Royal Caribbean does not keep the vouchers nor does it give them to ACLM; rather, it gives ACLM a “load slip” with a head count for each trip. ACLM then uses these load slips to invoice Royal Caribbean for the trips. The agreement stated that ACLM would receive payment only if a passenger actually boarded the bus, with Royal Caribbean deciding whether to pay based on a per-person or per-bus rate. FN2 As a result, ACLM receives all of its payments from Royal Caribbean, rather than the passengers.
In addition to these local shuttle services, ACLM also provided other forms of in-state and out-of-state motor coach transportation, including driving shuttle bus routes at the University of Miami. Between 2004 and 2007, ACLM drivers made at least 148 trips that involved out-of-state travel, some for as long as 90 days. Both parties agree that approximately $1.7 million, or 4.06% of ACLM’s total revenue during that period, came from these out-of-state trips and that about 19% of its drivers made such trips. There appear to have been 75 ACLM drivers who made out-of-state trips during the time frame, which constitutes 19.08% of the 393 drivers employed by ACLM for that period.FN5 Nine of the 63 Appellants (14.29%) made out-of-state trips for ACLM, and Appellants spent less than 286 days on such trips during the period in question. ACLM does not keep records of how many trips its drivers make on a daily or annual basis, and there is no solid evidence regarding how many overall trips ACLM drivers made between 2004 and 2007 nor of what percentage of those trips involved out-of-state travel. One ACLM executive agreed that 10,000 total trips a year would be a reasonable estimate. He stated that, if this estimate were correct, then around 100 of those trips would involve out-of-state travel, which would mean that approximately 1% of ACLM’s total trips were out of state.”
After finding that the Defendant was a “motor carrier” the Court turned its inquiry to that of whether Plaintiffs were covered by the MCA. “Courts are ‘guided by practical considerations’ in determining whether an employee’s activities would be part of interstate commerce for purposes of the FLSA. Marshall v. Victoria Transp. Co., Inc., 603 F.2d 1122, 1123 (5th Cir.1979) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “When persons or goods move from a point of origin in one state to a point of destination in another, the fact that a part of that journey consists of transportation by an independent agency solely within the boundaries of one state does not make that portion of the trip any less interstate in character.”United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 332 U.S. 218, 228, 67 S.Ct. 1560, 1566, 91 L.Ed. 2010 (1947), overruled on other grounds by Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984). As a result, purely intrastate transportation can constitute part of interstate commerce if it is part of a “continuous stream of interstate travel.” Chao v. First Class Coach Co., Inc., 214 F.Supp.2d. 1263, 1272 (M.D.Fla.2001). For this to be the case, there must be a “practical continuity of movement” between the intrastate segment and the overall interstate flow. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 568, 63 S.Ct. 332, 335, 87 L.Ed. 460 (1943); see also Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distribs., Inc., 300 F.3d 217, 223 (2d Cir.2002) (applying this standard in analyzing applicability of motor carrier exemption).
In Marshall, we addressed a city bus service in Brownsville, Texas, which often transported people who had walked across the Mexican border before boarding the bus. See Marshall, 603 F.2d at 1123-24. We characterized the transportation of people making international journeys as “a regular, recurring and substantial part” of the bus drivers’ overall workload. Id. at 1125. Because the drivers’ work thereby was “entwined with a continuous stream of international travel,” we concluded that the drivers were engaged in interstate commerce, even though their routes were solely intrastate. Id. The Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in United States v. Capital Transit Co., 338 U.S. 286, 70 S.Ct. 115, 94 L.Ed. 93 (1949). That case involved a bus service that drove routes within the District of Columbia that took commuters to locations where they then could board buses bound for Virginia. See id. at 288, 70 S.Ct. at 116. The Court found that the Interstate Commerce Commission (“ICC”) had regulatory authority under the MCA over those intra-district bus routes because they were “part of a continuous stream of interstate transportation” and thus formed “an integral part of an interstate movement.” Id. at 290, 70 S.Ct. at 117.
These cases indicate that ACLM’s airport-to-seaport routes would come under the Secretary’s MCA jurisdiction. Its shuttle trips share a practical continuity of movement with the interstate or international travel of the cruise lines and their passengers, just as the Brownsville bus routes did for their riders’ cross-border journeys. For cruise ship passengers arriving at the airport or seaport, ACLM’s shuttle rides would be part of the continuous stream of interstate travel that is their cruise vacation. The Royal Caribbean patrons in particular would have no reason to have any alternate view since the fee for the shuttle ride would either be bundled as part of their cruise vacation package or would be included on the bill for their Royal Caribbean shipboard account.”
The Court shot down each of Plaintiffs arguments that they were not subject to the MCA. The Court said: (1) application of the MCA did not require travel in interstate trips; (2) the incidental-to-air exemption was inapplicable; and (3) Defendants were not required to have a “through-ticketing” arrangement with the cruise line to argue that the passengers were all moving in the continuity of interstate commerce.
Therefore, the Court found that under the circumstances, the bus drivers were not entitled to the benefits of the FLSA, because they were exempt under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption to the FLSA.
NY Times: A Call To Change The Unfair Wage Laws Applicable To Home Health Employees
“Change is too slow coming for the nation’s one million home care aides. In 2007, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a 1975 federal labor regulation that defines home care aides as ‘companions.’ That definition exempts home care employers — often for-profit agencies — from having to pay the federal minimum wage or time and a half for overtime.
In explaining their decision, the justices pointed out that the law gives the Labor Department, not the court, the power to change the regulation. Yet, more than two years later, the regulation still stands.
Last month, 15 senators sent a letter to Hilda Solis, President Obama’s labor secretary, urging her to eliminate the “companion” exemption. A month earlier, 37 House members sent a similar letter. But beyond a statement from Ms. Solis expressing concern and pledging to look into the matter, there has been no progress.”
Go here, to read the entire editorial piece appearing in the July 9, 2009, New York Times.
Overtime Law Blog 