22 Cited authorities

Thomas v. Speedway
506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007) Cited 221 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that store manager was relatively free from supervision even when her district manager visited her store once or twice a week, communicated with the plaintiff frequently over the phone and email, and remained constantly available
Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc.
266 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 180 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that employees qualified as exempt even though the employees spent ninety percent of their time on nonexempt tasks due to other relevant factors
Donovan v. Burger King Corp.
672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982) Cited 148 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Burger King assistant managers have management as their primary duty"
Donovan v. Burger King Corp.
675 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1982) Cited 119 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that Burger King assistant managers "have, as their `primary duty,' managerial responsibilities"
Murray v. Stuckey's, Inc.
50 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 1995) Cited 80 times
Holding that supervision of two or more employees who worked 80 hours per week 98.2% of the time was "`customarily and regularly' by any definition"
West v. Anne Arundel County
137 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 1998) Cited 55 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that EMS Training Lieutenants' position met criteria because the Lieutenants “develop[ed], coordinate[d], implement[ed,] and conduct[ed] EMS training programs ... prepare[d] lesson plans and training aids supervise [d] delivery of training and tests and evaluate[d] new equipment”
Kastor v. Sam's Wholesale Club
131 F. Supp. 2d 862 (N.D. Tex. 2001) Cited 42 times
Holding demonstrable evidence of significant pay disparity sufficient to support application of executive exemption
Haines v. Southern Retailers, Inc.
939 F. Supp. 441 (E.D. Va. 1996) Cited 37 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding store manager was exempt executive even though the majority of his time was spent on non-exempt responsibilities
Beauchamp v. Flex-N-Gate LLC
357 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (E.D. Mich. 2005) Cited 21 times
Holding that production supervisor qualifies for executive exemption despite limited authority to hire and fire because the defendant company was using a temporary worker agency as an initial source of new employees
Monroe Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Monroe
600 F. Supp. 2d 790 (W.D. La. 2009) Cited 16 times
Holding that "[t]o the extent that the post-August 23, 2004 regulations require an actual disciplinary deduction and to the extent that these regulations are controlling, there is no evidence that any [employee] ever suffered a twelve-hour deduction from pay for missing out."
Section 541.200 - [Effective until 7/1/2024] General rule for administrative employees
29 C.F.R. § 541.200 Cited 898 times 92 Legal Analyses
Providing that the administrative exemption can also apply if the employee’s primary duty is directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer’s customers
Section 541.100 - [Effective 7/1/2024] General rule for executive employees
29 C.F.R. § 541.100 Cited 852 times 52 Legal Analyses
Requiring payment "on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week"
Section 541.1 - Terms used in regulations
29 C.F.R. § 541.1 Cited 432 times 6 Legal Analyses
Requiring that an exempt employee's work "includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees"
Section 31-60-14 - Employee in bona fide executive capacity
Conn. Agencies Regs. § 31-60-14 Cited 8 times 1 Legal Analyses
(a) For the purposes of section 31-58(f) of the general statutes, as amended, "employee employed in a bona fide executive capacity" means any employee (1) whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which he is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; and (2) who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees therein; and (3) who has the authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and recommendations

Perkins v. Southern New England Telephone Co Inc

22 Cited authorities

Holding that store manager was relatively free from supervision even when her district manager visited her store once or twice a week, communicated with the plaintiff frequently over the phone and email, and remained constantly available

Holding that employees qualified as exempt even though the employees spent ninety percent of their time on nonexempt tasks due to other relevant factors

Holding that "Burger King assistant managers have management as their primary duty"

Holding that Burger King assistant managers "have, as their `primary duty,' managerial responsibilities"

Holding that supervision of two or more employees who worked 80 hours per week 98.2% of the time was "`customarily and regularly' by any definition"

Holding that EMS Training Lieutenants' position met criteria because the Lieutenants “develop[ed], coordinate[d], implement[ed,] and conduct[ed] EMS training programs ... prepare[d] lesson plans and training aids supervise [d] delivery of training and tests and evaluate[d] new equipment”

Holding demonstrable evidence of significant pay disparity sufficient to support application of executive exemption

Holding store manager was exempt executive even though the majority of his time was spent on non-exempt responsibilities

Holding that production supervisor qualifies for executive exemption despite limited authority to hire and fire because the defendant company was using a temporary worker agency as an initial source of new employees

Holding that "[t]o the extent that the post-August 23, 2004 regulations require an actual disciplinary deduction and to the extent that these regulations are controlling, there is no evidence that any [employee] ever suffered a twelve-hour deduction from pay for missing out."

Providing that the administrative exemption can also apply if the employee’s primary duty is directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer’s customers

Requiring payment "on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week"

Requiring that an exempt employee's work "includes the customary and regular direction of the work of two or more other employees"