18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

248 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition carrier of air subject to the provisions of Title II of the Railway Labor Act.” Id . at 3. Under the exemption, a “carrier” is an actual air carrier, or any company operating any equipment or facilities or performing any service in connection with the “transportation, receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, refrigeration or icing, storage, or handling of properly transported.” Id . Plaintiffs argued that Defendant failed to establish that it was a “carrier by air” such that its employees would be subject to the exemption. The Court found that Plaintiffs’ security services were not sufficiently related to transportation activities to establish that the nature of the work was traditionally performed by air carriers. For these reasons, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Oglesby, et al. v. Professional Transportation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174369 (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 2021). Plaintiff, a field safety officer (“FSO”), filed a collective action alleging that Defendant misclassified FSOs as exempt employees and thereby failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. Defendant contended that Plaintiff was correctly classified as exempt under the administrative employee exemption to the FLSA. Plaintiff provided safety audits, training, accident investigations, and other important risk management functions and was paid over $51,000 per year. Plaintiff worked with management at a site to ensure that any coaching deemed necessary by a safety incident was given to the employee. Training was often a product of a branch’s non-compliance with safety directives and such non-compliance was identified through audits conducted by Plaintiff. Id . at *5. Plaintiff was also involved in investigating accidents, and would make recommendations based on the outcome of an investigation as to whether to classify the accident as preventable or non-preventable. The Court explained that employees classified as exempt under the administrative exemption included "any employee in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity." Id . at *8. To prove the elements of the exemption, an employer must show: (i) that Plaintiff was compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $684 per week; (ii) that Plaintiff’s primary duty was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of Defendant or Defendant’s customers; and (iii) that Plaintiff’s primary duty included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. The Court held a trial to determine the applicability of the administrative exemption defense to Plaintiff’s claims and whether Plaintiff’s primary duty was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of Defendant or its customers, and whether Plaintiff’s primary duty included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. Id . at *9. The Court noted that the parties had stipulated to the fact that Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week in some workweeks and was paid a salary, so that the first element of the exemption was met. As to the second element, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s primary duty was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of Defendant. The Court therefore determined that Plaintiff met the second element of the exemption. Finally, as to the third element, the Court concluded that Plaintiff’s primary duties included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. Accordingly, the Court ruled that Defendant met its requisite burden of proof to demonstrate that all elements of the administrative exemption were satisfied, and thus FSOs were properly classified as exempt employees. Quinn, et al. v. City Of Eaton , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68060 (S.D. Ohio April 8, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of fire department captains, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the Court denied. It held that material issues of fact or law existed as to whether fire captains were exempt employees. Plaintiffs were each paid a salary of at least $455 per week during their employment. Defendant contended that Plaintiffs were exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA pursuant to the executive and administrative exemptions. Plaintiffs asserted that they were improperly considered exempt employees, and should actually be non-exempt under the first responder regulation since their primary job requirements were emergency response and that they were "hands on, frontline emergency responders first." Id . at *8. Defendant asserted that as fire captains, their primary job requirements were actually to direct the crew in the event of an emergency situation. Plaintiffs countered that, in reality, they spent the majority of their time in emergency situations acting in the same manner as any other firefighter, and not performing any directing or managing role. The Court determined that the record contained genuine disputes of material fact regarding the type of work Plaintiffs actually engaged in as their primary duties, such that it could not determine whether or not the first responder regulation applied. As to the executive exemption to the FLSA, the Court found that deposition testimony from the fire chief stated that the chain of command was not so delineated as to suggest