Brown v. Nexus Bus. Solutions, LLC

• Decision Date: 01 April 2022
• Docket Number: No. 20-13909,20-13909
• Citation: 29 F.4th 1315
• Parties: Alicia BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a Collective Action, Plaintiff-Appellant, Tina Khouri, Plaintiff, v. NEXUS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

29 F.4th 1315

Alicia BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a Collective Action, Plaintiff-Appellant,Tina Khouri, Plaintiff,

v.NEXUS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-13909

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Filed: April 1, 2022

Mitchell Douglas Benjamin, Charles Ronald Bridgers, Matthew Wilson Herrington, DeLong Caldwell Bridgers Fitzpatrick & Benjamin, LLC, Atlanta, GA, Mitchell L. Feldman, Feldman Law Group, PA, Tampa, FL, Benjamin L. Williams, Williams Law PA, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eric Leroy Barnum, Lindsay McCall, Mitchell A. Robinson, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Atlanta, GA, John B. Lewis, Carrie A. Valdez, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before William Pryor, Chief Judge, Grant, and Anderson, Circuit Judges.

Grant, Circuit Judge:

The Fair Labor Standards Act generally requires employers to pay their employees more for working over 40 hours per week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). But it also contains exceptions. The overtime provisions do not apply, for example, to employees working in "a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity." Id. § 213(a)(1).

The plaintiffs here are "business development managers," tasked with persuading corporate customers to purchase General Motors vehicles for their fleets. Because this task often requires over 40 hours of effort per week, the employees argue that they are entitled to overtime compensation. They are not. Because these workers exercise discretion in the performance of business development tasks, they fall within the administrative exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to their employer below.

I.

About nine years ago, General Motors launched "Operation Conquest"—an initiative aimed at increasing business for its dealerships and enlarging the market share of its vehicles. The plan involved recruiting business development managers who would "hunt and conquest [sic] commercial business from primary automotive competitors" through "direct contact with prospective conquest customers" who maintain mid-size fleets. In other words, the new recruits specialized in finding new corporate customers and persuading them to purchase GM vehicles. Business development managers were told to "research and qualify prospects, make customer presentations and transition sales opportunities to GM dealers." (Emphasis omitted). Each was expected to be a "facilitator and liaison" between customers and dealerships by developing "business leads and opportunities." But they had no authority to quote binding prices or close sales themselves. Only authorized dealerships could do that.

Although General Motors provided data and resources for the business development managers to use, it outsourced their actual hiring to Nexus Business Solutions; all of that firm's revenue came from staffing Operation Conquest. Nexus also managed the business development managers and evaluated them on a monthly basis. The evaluation accounted for initial meetings, presentations, new accounts resulting in a GM vehicle purchase, and vehicles ordered by or delivered to customers. And because Nexus offered bonuses for good results, it is no surprise that workweeks longer than 40 hours were common. Business development managers were instructed that more time working would result in more business—the message was that there was "no such thing as too much."

Perhaps chafing at this approach, a group of the employees filed a collective action suit against Nexus, alleging overtime violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In response, Nexus asserted that the Act's maximum hour provisions do not apply because the business development managers are covered by several statutory exemptions—namely those for administrative employees, outside salespeople, and auto sales employees. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Nexus's motion, concluding that the business development managers fell under the administrative exemption.¹ The employees now appeal.

II.

We review an appeal from summary judgment de novo. Scantland v. Jeffry Knight, Inc. , 721 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2013). Summary judgment is proper "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we draw "all justifiable inferences" in that party's favor. Id. (quotation omitted). Whether an exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies is "a matter of affirmative defense on which the employer has the burden of proof." Corning Glass Works v. Brennan , 417 U.S. 188, 196–97, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974).

III.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees who work over 40 hours per week are generally entitled to time-and-a-half compensation for overtime. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). But not all workers qualify—the statute exempts employees working in "a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity." Id. § 213(a)(1). This provision is often referred to in shorthand as the administrative exemption.

To decide who falls within this exemption, the Department of Labor uses a three-pronged test. An employee is an administrative worker if (1) her salary exceeds the minimum established by the regulation, (2) she mainly performs "office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer" or its customers, and (3) her "primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance." 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a). The employees do not dispute that the first two prongs are satisfied here. But they argue that their jobs do not satisfy the third—the requirement that they exercise discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

To be sure, many jobs do not. Only those employees who engage in "the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered," make the cut. Id. § 541.202(a). Whether an employee exercises the required level of discretion is ultimately a holistic determination, but several factors guide the inquiry. Id. § 541.202(b). Employees that satisfy the discretion prong of the test have the "authority to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision," even though their choices may still be subject to review, revision, or reversal. Id. § 541.202(c). The work must involve "more than the use of skill in applying well-established techniques, procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources"; it cannot be "mechanical, repetitive, recurrent or routine." Id. § 541.202(e). And finally, the work must relate to "matters of significance," which "refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed." Id. § 541.202(a).

The employees argue that their work for Nexus was too restricted and repetitive to allow for meaningful discretion. They describe their jobs as asking "pre-determined...