18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 247 which he attested to his primary job duties and described the work he performed, which "was to interview veterans and their families to get the necessary information for filing a claim with the VA, then help them fill out the required paperwork. Id . at *10-11. Plaintiff asserted that he could only refuse to help a client file a claim in very specific circumstances laid out by the VSC and therefore he had very little oversight, or independent discretion or judgment. Plaintiff contended that the successful completion of his job entailed no more than the use of his skill and experience in applying well-established techniques, procedures, or specific standards described in manuals or other sources. Id . at *11. The Court observed that both parties presented summary judgment evidence that controverted the assertions and evidence of the opposing party such that summary judgment was not appropriate. The Court determined that based upon the competing summary judgment evidence and declarations, the final legal determination of whether Plaintiff exercised discretionary authority and independent judgment would require factual determinations of the weighing of evidence and a determination of credibility of the witnesses. Id . at *12. Accordingly, the Court ruled that a jury must determine whether or not the administrative exemption applied to Plaintiff’s position. For these reasons, the Court therefore denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Marcus, et al. v. American Contract Bridge League, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57205 (D. Mass. March 24, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of current and former tournament directors for Defendant American Contract Bridge League, Inc. ("ACBL"), brought a putative class action alleging that Defendant improperly classified them as exempt employees, thereby resulting in overtime violations of the FLSA. Defendant’s employees had a variety of job titles and rankings. Most employees who directed sanctioned tournaments had the job title of Tournament Director. Others who directed tournaments, however, had different job titles including Field Supervisor, Area Manager, Mentor, National Tournament Director, Associate National Tournament Director, and Sectional Tournaments at Clubs ("STaC") Coordinator. Regardless of title, all employees who directed tournaments held a tournament-director rank that was distinct from their job title. Defendant required that all employees who worked as tournament directors, regardless of title or rank, work approximately 270 to 300 tournament sessions each year, which required them to work more than 40 hours a week. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claims for unpaid overtime and largely contested whether the employees were exempt pursuant to the administrative exemption of the FLSA. Defendant contended that all Plaintiffs, regardless of the positions they held, were properly classified as exempt under the administrative exemption. The Court concluded that the Tournament Directors were not exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Court based its ruling on the fact the: (i) primary duty of Tournament Directors, which was officiating bridge contests, did not relate to Defendant’s management or general business operations; and (ii) those employees did not exercise discretion or independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. Accordingly, the Court held that Tournament Directors were not subject to the administrative exemption under the FLSA administrative exemption. In addition, the Court held that that National Tournament Directors and Associate National Tournament Directors were subject to the administrative exemption. First, the Court found that their positions required them to: (i) manage large tournaments and the associated staff; (ii) train and mentor other directors in making rulings, movement selection, game setup, and tournament scheduling; (iii) guide disputes concerning gameplay and poor behavior through appeals committees; and (iv) draft and update tournament regulations. The Court found that it was clear that those duties constituted administrative rather than production work. Likewise, the Court found that Field Supervisors, Area Managers, and Mentors were also subject to the administrative exemption because they oversaw the day-to-day performance of dealers and made recommendations as to hiring and firing decisions. Accordingly, the Court found that based on the undisputed evidence in the record, the primary duty of employees in the positions of National Tournament Director, Associate National Tournament Director, Field Supervisor, Area Manager, and Mentor directly related to Defendant’s management or general business operations and included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. As such, the Court concluded that those positions were therefore exempt from FLSA’s overtime provision under the administrative exemption. Melendres, et al. v. G4S Solutions, Case No. 20-CV-24213 (S.D. Fla. March 18, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of airport security guards, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss, and the Court denied the motion. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs were subject to the Railway Labor Act’s exemption from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The Court explained that the air carrier exemption removes from FLSA coverage any employee “of a