Planning the work and preparing reports to management or meeting with management are considered exempt duties. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102 (exempt job duties include “planning the work” and “maintaining production or sales records for use in supervision or control.”).

(SUF ¶ 10.) She was the sole exempt manager running her store for up to an average of 36 hours each week, and she performed almost all of the duties that the DOL has defined as exempt.11 See 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. Her former supervisors’ testimony is compelling as well.

The regulations provide a list of examples of management duties: interviewing, selecting, and training of employees; setting and adjusting their rates of pay and hours of work; directing the work of employees; maintaining production or sales records for use in supervision or control; appraising employees' productivity and efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or other changes in status; handling employee complaints and grievances; disciplining employees; planning the work; determining the type of materials, supplies, machinery, equipment or tools to be used for merchandise to be bought, stocked and sold; controlling the flow and distribution of materials or merchandise and supplies; providing for the safety and security of the employees or the property; planning and controlling the budget; and monitoring or implementing legal compliance measures. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. [2] Aaron asserts that Kuntsmann's primary duty was management, as he regularly performed many of the exemplary management duties provided in the regulations, including interviewing applicants and being responsible for the supervision, training, discipline, safety, and security of the store employees. He was also responsible for the store's sales, inventory, and selection and ordering of merchandise. Aaron argues that these management duties were substantially more important to the company that any other types of duties he performed.

While plaintiff says she spent her time as LOD on physical labor tasks like organizing aisles, cashiering, and sweeping and mopping the trash area, ETL-AP Gregory Hammer counters that he spent his time as LOD on unquestionably exempt tasks, such as “reviewing sales and payroll numbers, planning the work that needs to be accomplished for the day, walking the sales floor to ensure that the store is running properly, assigning tasks to team members, directing the work of team members, appraising team members’ productivity, handling team member complaints and grievances, and training team members.”8 SE 86; see 29 C.F.R. § 541.102 (2001) (listing as exempt managerial work: directing and supervising employees’ work, planning reached a certain amount of days without safety incidents, the team would get to open one of the doors to see what prize they earned.” By developing this safety incentive program, Estrada was able to achieve 700 days without a safety incident.

Prior to 2005 or 2006 when approval became necessary, Indergit testified that he alone terminated and/or disciplined employees for attendance 54 Recommending changes in status and disciplining employees is defined as “management” by the regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. Case 1:08-cv-09361-JPO-HBP Document 209 Filed 01/22/13 Page 25 of 43 20 issues, failure to show up to work, stealing, cash register violations, vandalizing property, and insubordination.

Compare [Doc. 568, at 35] and 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. The Court’s instruction, however, did not leave the jury completely at sea in determining what constitutes a management duty.

Both courts and the DOL find that “[d]etermining whether an employee is exempt is extremely individual and fact-intensive, requiring ‘a detailed analysis of the time spent performing [managerial] duties’ and ‘a careful factual analysis of the full range of the employee’s job duties and responsibilities.’” Diaz v. Electronics Boutique of Am., Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30382, at *10 (quoting Mike, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 220); 29 C.F.R. § 541.102 (“[t]he exempt status of any particular employee must be determined on the basis of whether the employee’s salary and duties meet the requirements of the regulations.” (emphasis added)).

But more importantly, the benefits provided to Plaintiff at Rasika are not even relevant as to whether Defendants were required to pay Plaintiff overtime. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.102 (listing the job responsibilities for an individual employed in “management”). Thus, the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion with respect to this category of documents.

tes of pay and hours of work; directing the work of employees; maintaining production or sales records for use in supervision or control; appraising employees’ productivity and efficiency for the purpose of recommending promotions or other changes in status; handling employee complaints and grievances; disciplining employees; planning the work; determining the techniques to be used; apportioning the work among the employees; determining the type of materials, supplies, machinery, equipment or tools to be used or merchandise to be bought, stocked and sold; controlling the flow and distribution of materials or merchandise and supplies; providing for the safety and security of the employees or the Case 4:16-cv-00817-Y Document 29 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID 310 7 property; planning and controlling the budget; and monitoring or implementing legal compliance measures. 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. FTSI does not claim Livingston interviewed or selected employees.

It includes “training of employees . . . directing the work of employees” and “planning the work; determining the techniques to be used.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.102. Livingston supervised and ran frac crews for FTSI from 2011 to 2012, left, and returned to FTSI to again supervise crews.