In the case of the Cash Wash Manager, the court has to look at the duties tests related to his job title to determine whether or not this man is entitled to the overtime pay he is sueing for.
In reading over all the descriptions of possible job titles, I believe this man best fits in the category of holding an Administrative position.
Under the salary test, this car wash manager makes less that the $455 per week minimum so he qualifies as a non exempt employee under the FLSA.
The articles states that his duties include adminstrative jobs such as scheduling, training and discipline. The article also states that he spent 95% of his time working right along side his employees. Since the duties test states that his primary duties must be office work or non manual responsibilities , he clearly fails this test also. In addition, the information in the article tells us that while he could make recommendations regarding hiring and firing, he did not have the authority to make any decisions regarding his staff. Under this test, he also qualifies for as non exempt.
Based on the above information, I believe the court should rule in favor of the cash wash manager, he is non-exempt under the FLSA and is entitled to the overtime pay he is asking for. ss
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The appeals court upheld the ruling of the district court that Jackson was not an exempt executive employee. Hence, the employer violated the FLSA by not paying him properly for overtime work performed. The case was decided under the “old” regulations, but the outcome would have been the same under the current regulations.
Under the duties portion of the short test, the employer was required to show that the employee’s primary duty is the management of the employer’s enterprise and that the employee customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other full-time employees. The court accepted as a general guideline that a primary duty will usually consume over 50 percent of the employee’s time. In this case, the plaintiff testified that 95% of his time was spent performing janitorial and non-managerial tasks, and the employer was unable to show otherwise. In practice, Jackson operated as a “glorified Car Wash attendant,” performing the same tasks as other attendants. Additionally, he was compensated only slightly more on an hourly basis than the regular attendants and he was given little discretion or independent authority. As evidence of the latter, Jackson lacked the authority to independently decide whom to hire or fire, and how much employees should be paid. Although the finding that the employee’s primary duty did not consist of management of the employer’s enterprise was sufficient to rule against the employer, the court noted that it also agreed with the lower court that the small, part-time staff did not work enough hours under Jackson’s supervision to meet the second prong of the duties test either.
Under the current regulations, the decision that Jackson is not an exempt executive would be even more clear-cut. He would not meet the minimum salary requirement under the new regulations because he was paid a weekly salary of less than $455/wk. The new regulations also add to the duties test the requirement that the employee have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or to make recommendations on these matters that hold considerable weight. Since the court found that Jackson did not have such authority, this would further argue against exempt status. However, the current regulations place less emphasis on frequency of performance as an indicator of a “primary duty.”
Post a Comment