O'Dell v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., s. 87-3962

Decision Date16 September 1988
Docket Number87-3974,Nos. 87-3962,s. 87-3962
Citation856 F.2d 1452
Parties28 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 1617, 109 Lab.Cas. P 35,108 Gary O'DELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Lawrence R. Trotter, Robert I. Shoaf, Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., Kenneth P. Eggers and Sema E. Lederman, Groh, Eggers

& Price, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Bradley D. Owens, Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens, P.C., Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Before TANG, KOZINSKI and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

TANG, Circuit Judge:

I.

Alyeska appeals the district court's award of overtime wages and liquidated damages to Gary O'Dell under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA], 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201, et seq. It also appeals the district court's dismissal of its counterclaim for unjust enrichment. O'Dell cross-appeals, seeking reinstatement of his state law claim for a wage penalty and additional overtime wages under the Alaska Wage and Hour Act [AWHA], AS 23.10.050 et seq. We reverse.

II.

The facts necessary to a proper determination of the legal question whether an exemption to the FLSA applies in a particular case are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Washington, 475 U.S. 709, 713, 106 S.Ct. 1527, 1529, 89 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986). The question whether O'Dell's activities as a field inspector excluded him from the overtime benefits of the FLSA is a question of law governed by the regulations promulgated by the Wage and Hour Administrator, and is reviewed de novo. Id. at 714, 106 S.Ct. at 1530; United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1200 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824, 105 S.Ct. 101, 83 L.Ed.2d 46 (1984).

III.

Gary O'Dell was a Field Inspector working for Alyeska from September 15, 1980, through September 30, 1983. Prior to 1980, Alyeska reorganized and combined its quality evaluation and inspection groups within its engineering department. The reorganization merged into the field inspector position the duties previously performed by a field inspector and a quality control inspector. Thus, O'Dell's duties included observing work and assuring compliance with pertinent regulations and industry standards, and auditing records to ensure compliance with U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Transportation requirements.

Alyeska field inspectors work without supervision at remote field locations along the Pipeline. They maintain daily contact with their superiors by telephone. When a field inspector determines that work fails to satisfy minimum standards set out in "control documents" he is to attempt to handle the discrepancy on site by negotiation with the project supervisor. If a discrepancy cannot be resolved on site the field inspector documents the problem and refers it to his supervisor or the Alyeska engineering department, making recommendations for waivers of specifications if necessary. It is undisputed that field inspectors can reject work if it is deemed unacceptable. They can review and override the decisions of quality control inspectors employed by contractors. In 1982 and 1983, Alyeska field inspectors helped develop guidelines for inspection procedures.

During his time with Alyeska, O'Dell was paid every two weeks on an annual salary above $51,000 including an isolation differential of $7,800 per year. In addition, as an exempt employee, he was entitled to home sale assistance, home purchase assistance, other relocation benefits, and vacation and emergency travel reimbursement. O'Dell was paid over $16,000 in benefits he would not have received as a non-exempt employee.

IV.

Alyeska correctly argues that the district court erred by applying the "Long Test" rather than the "Short Test" when evaluating the degree of discretion and independent judgment required to establish an administrative exemption under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213 from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Under the "Long Test" an administrative employee qualifies as an exempt employee only if his job requires that he "customarily and regularly exercise[ ] discretion and independent judgment." 29 C.F.R. Sec. 41.2(b) (emphasis added). The "Short Test" is applicable to high-salaried administrative employees like O'Dell. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.2(e)(2). Under the Short Test, O'Dell's job must only "include ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Schaefer v. Indiana Michigan Power Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • February 26, 2002
    ...not require the employee to `customarily and regularly' exercise discretion and independent judgment."); O'Dell v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 856 F.2d 1452, 1454 (9th Cir.1988) ("Under the Short Test, O'Dell's job must only `include [] work requiring the exercise of discretion and independ......
  • Blotzer v. L-3 Commc'ns Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • December 5, 2012
    ...level. Defendant's argument in favor of application of the administrative exemption relies primarily on O'Dell v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 856 F.2d 1452 (9th Cir.1988); that reliance is misplaced. First, contrary to Defendant's assertion, O'Dell is not the "leading decision with respect ......
  • Sack v. Miami Helicopter Service, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • November 14, 1997
    ...and independent judgment. Dymond v. United States Postal Service, 670 F.2d 93, 95 (8th Cir.1982); O'Dell v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 856 F.2d 1452, 1454 (9th Cir.1988). This Court observes that 29 C.F.R. § 541.2(e)(2) contains language that specifically refers to the additional require......
  • Debejian v. Atlantic Testing Laboratories, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • August 27, 1999
    ...to decide to accept non-conforming steel, or to otherwise exercise independent judgment or discretion. See O'Dell v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 856 F.2d 1452, 1454 (9th Cir. 1988); 29 C.F.R. § 541.207(a) ("In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the compari......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT