Williams v. Genex Servs., LLC

Decision Date18 December 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–1966.,14–1966.
Citation809 F.3d 103
Parties Nancy A. WILLIAMS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellant, and Sandra Sherman, Plaintiff, v. GENEX SERVICES, LLC, f/k/a Genex Services, Inc., Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

ARGUED:Nicholas Woodfield, The Employment Law Group, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Russell Robert Bruch, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF:R. Scott Oswald, The Employment Law Group, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Michael J. Puma, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Allyson N. Ho, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Dallas, Texas, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion in which Judge AGEE and Judge WYNN joined.

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:

PlaintiffAppellant, Nancy Williams (Williams), is employed by DefendantAppellee, Genex Services, LLC (Genex), as a Field Medical Case Manager (FMCM). She brought this action against Genex claiming that Genex was required to pay her overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA or the Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 219, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Md. Code Lab. & Empl. §§ 3–401 to 3–431, for the overtime hours she worked. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Genex. Williams appeals, and we now affirm.

I
A

The FLSA protects "all covered workers from substandard wages and oppressive working hours." Barrentine v. Arkansas–Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739, 101 S.Ct. 1437, 67 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981) ; see also 29 U.S.C. § 202(a) (noting that the FLSA protects "the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers"). Toward these ends, the FLSA establishes the general rule that employers must pay overtime compensation to employees who work more than forty hours during a seven-day work week. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).1 Employees are entitled to overtime compensation according to the general rule unless their employer proves that one of the Act's many exemptions applies. See Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1960) (noting that the FLSA's "exemptions are to be narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them and their application limited to those establishments plainly and unmistakably within their terms and spirit"). Genex asserts that Williams is not entitled to overtime compensation under the general rule because she is "employed in a bona fide ... professional capacity." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).

The FLSA provides that any "employee employed in a bona fide ... professional capacity" is exempt from the general rule requiring overtime compensation. Id. § 213(a)(1). The responsibility for outlining the contours of this exemption lies with the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary). See id. (permitting the Secretary to "define[ ] and delimit[ ]" various terms in the FLSA). The relevant Department of Labor (DOL) regulations define "employee employed in a bona fide ... professional capacity," id., as any employee who is "[c]ompensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week," 29 C.F.R. § 541.300(a)(1), and whose "primary duty is the performance of work," id. § 541.300(a)(2), "[r]equiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction," id. § 541.300(a)(2)(i), or "[r]equiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor," id. § 541.300(a)(2)(ii).2

The DOL regulations define "primary duty" as "the principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs." Id. § 541.700(a). Under § 541.700(a),

[d]etermination of an employee's primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character of the employee's job as a whole. Factors to consider when determining the primary duty of an employee include, but are not limited to, the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; the amount of time spent performing exempt work; the employee's relative freedom from direct supervision; and the relationship between the employee's salary and the wages paid to other employees for the kind of nonexempt work performed by the employee.

Id.

The DOL regulations recognize that the amount of time spent performing exempt work can be a useful guide in determining whether exempt work is the primary duty of an employee:

[E]mployees who spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt work will generally satisfy the primary duty requirement. Time alone, however, is not the sole test, and nothing in this section requires that exempt employees spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt work. Employees who do not spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt duties may nonetheless meet the primary duty requirement if the other factors support such a conclusion.

Id. § 541.700(b).

There is no dispute that Williams earns more than $455 per week. However, Genex claims that Williams' primary duty is the performance of work (1) requiring advanced knowledge, (2) in a field of science or learning, (3) that is customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction, and, thus, the exemption, referred to in the DOL regulations as the "[l]earned professional[ ]" exemption, id. § 541.301, applies.3 Williams counters by arguing that she is not engaged in the performance of such work.

B

Genex provides integrated managed care services to its clients, which include various employers and workers' compensation insurers. Such services focus on controlling health care and disability costs, ensuring that quality health care is provided to injured workers, and improving return-to-work rates. At Genex, FMCMs help injured workers return to work as quickly, safely, and cost-effectively as possible.

Williams began working for Genex as an FMCM in 2011 after Genex acquired the assets of her former employer, Intracorp.4 Williams is paid a salary by Genex. She received $83,354.14 in total compensation in 2012 and $81,103.29 in total compensation in 2013.

Williams has two supervisors at Genex, Andy Nussdorf (Nussdorf), Branch Manager for Genex's Field Case Management Branch in Elkridge, Maryland, and Sofia Harris (Harris), the Case Management Supervisor for Genex's Elkridge Office. Because FMCMs at Genex work in the field, rather than in an office, Williams rarely sees her supervisors. She testified at her November 5, 2013 deposition that she last saw Nussdorf in September 2011 and that she last saw Harris in the summer of 2012. Williams testified that she had "[i]rregular" phone contact with Nussdorf and Harris, indicating that "a week or a month might go by without a phone call with them." (J.A. 247). With regard to emails, Williams acknowledged that "sometimes a long time goes by and there's no communication" between her and either Nussdorf or Harris. (J.A. 252).

The parties agree that Maryland law requires an FMCM to be a registered nurse (RN) and to have a Workers Compensation Case Manager Certification from the Maryland Board of Nursing. Although Williams holds these credentials, she does not provide hands-on care. Rather, according to Genex's FMCM job description, Williams is "[r]esponsible for assessment, planning, coordination, implementation and evaluation of injured/disabled individuals involved in the medical case management process." (J.A. 682). FMCMs "work[ ] as an intermediary between carriers, attorneys, medical care providers, employers and employees to ensure appropriate and cost-effective healthcare services and a medically rehabilitated individual who is ready to return to an optimal level of work and functioning." (J.A. 682). As a result, each FMCM at Genex is required to: (1) "[u]se[ ] clinical/nursing skills to help coordinate the individual's treatment program while maximizing cost containment"; (2) "[s]erve[ ] as an intermediary to interpret and educate the individual on his/her disability, and the treatment plan established by the case manager, physicians, and therapists"; (3) "[w]ork[ ] with the physicians and therapists to set up medical assessments to develop an overall treatment plan that ensures cost containment while meeting state and other regulator's guidelines"; (4) "[r]esearch[ ] alternative treatment programs such as pain clinics, home health care, and work hardening"; and (5) "[w]ork[ ] with [the] employer[ ] on modifications to job duties based on medical limitations and the employee[']s functional assessment." (J.A. 683).

When working with an injured worker's case, Williams assesses the injured worker's medical condition and treatments in an effort to better understand the case and to look for opportunities to minimize the injured worker's time away from work. She interviews the injured worker and analyzes the injured worker's pertinent medical information, including medical history, current status, diagnosis, prognosis, and current treatment plan. From there, she continues to monitor the injured worker's medical condition. She often attends medical appointments with the injured worker and is free to ask physicians about the course of treatment. She educates both the injured worker and the insurance claims adjuster on the injured worker's injuries and treatments, and sometimes makes recommendations for alternative forms of treatment.

Williams is also responsible for developing an individualized care plan that will assist the injured worker in returning to work in a timely and safe manner. Essential parts of developing that plan include

setting mutually agreed-upon goals with measurable objectives, determining action steps toward achieving goals, and selecting essential resources and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Angelini v. Balt. Police Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 2, 2020
    ...party "may not avoid summary judgment by submitting contradictory evidence" with regard to earlier assertions. Williams v. Genex Services, LLC , 809 F.3d 103, 110 (4th Cir. 2015). It reiterated that allowing a party to do so would " ‘greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a pro......
  • U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Ecology Servs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 19, 2020
    ...party "may not avoid summary judgment by submitting contradictory evidence" with regard to earlier assertions. Williams v. Genex Services , LLC, 809 F.3d 103, 110 (4th Cir. 2015). Allowing a party to do so would " ‘greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screenin......
  • U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • August 12, 2021
    ...party "may not avoid summary judgment by submitting contradictory evidence" with regard to earlier assertions. Williams v. Genex Services, LLC , 809 F.3d 103, 110 (4th Cir. 2015). Allowing a party to do so would " ‘greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screenin......
  • Horsetail Techs., LLC v. Del. State Police Fed. Credit Union
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • June 19, 2020
    ...with the declarant's deposition testimony. See Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999); Williams v. Genex Servs., LLC, 809 F.3d 103, 110 (4th Cir. 2015); In re Family Dollar FLSA Litig., 637 F.3d 508, 512 (4th Cir. 2011). In order to avoid infringing upon the province of t......
  • 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