Do Not Overlook FLSA Duties in Light of New Salary Requirements

22 August 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Author(s): Dabney D. Ware

The upcoming change to salary requirements to the so-called “white collar” overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has garnered a lot of attention. However, even with a strong emphasis on the changes to the salary requirement, employers should not lose focus on the duties portion of the test.

The white collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional) generally have two components – payment on a qualifying salary basis and satisfaction of a duties-test requirement unique to each exemption. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (covering Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota) reminds employers that even though most recent focus has been on the salary test component, the duties test inquiry remains as critical as ever.

In the recent decision, the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s conclusion that the executive exemption applied to positions called “Team Leaders,” meaning the Team Leaders were exempt from overtime requirements. The duties test for the executive exemption generally requires the position:

  1. Manage a department or subdivision
  2. Routinely manage at least two employees (or full time equivalents)
  3. Have authority to hire and fire or be in a role where recommendations about personnel matters are given particular weight

The recent decision focused on the last element – both sides agreed the Team Leaders did not have authority to hire and fire, but the company argued their recommendations were given “particular weight.”

In agreeing with that argument by the company, the court relied upon testimony from the employees about the responsibility Team Leaders had to evaluate and provide feedback about the behavior of hourly employees, specifically mentioning their role in identifying rules violations or performance issues. The employees also acknowledged that Team Leaders had authority to make temporary reassignments and could recommend discipline. Evidence cited by the court included multiple examples of recommendations from Team Leaders being adopted – including discharge or retention of probationary employees, recommendations regarding promotions or demotions, and management of schedules and the ability to fill temporary vacancies through reassignments.

Interestingly, even though some of the employees challenging their exempt classification offered written statements about their lack of authority, the court ignored these statements because it considered them to be contradictory to the deposition testimony those same individuals had provided. One lesson here is the value in documenting the input of Team Leaders or similar positions – so there is written evidence to support the recommendations and ultimate decisions, establishing that particular weight was given to their recommendations or that the individual had authority to make such decisions.

Finally, in what feels like poetic justice, you may be interested to know that your company is not alone in dealing with FLSA issues. It was recently announced that the Department of Labor agreed to pay $7 million dollars to settle an overtime lawsuit with its own employees, from claims dating back to 2006. Apparently, even the folks who are supposed to know this best do not always get it right.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services