Case ID: f-appx_299/html/0315-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yolanda M. AGUIRRE; Ana M. Morris; Corina Ramos; Rose Urdialez; Olga Zertuche; Alejandra S. Amie; Nara Deleon; Sylvia Diahnn Sanchez, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC; Southwestern Bell Telephone Co; Southwestern Bell Telephone LP, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-20042.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 6, 2008.
    Jared R. Woodfill, V., Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Teresa S. Valderrama, Baker Botts, Houston, TX, Elizabeth K. Ferrell, The City of Houston Legal Department, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The issue in this appeal is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Southwestern Bell Telephone L.P. (“SWB”) after concluding that Plaintiffs-Appellants Yolanda Aguirre, Ana Morris, Corina Ramos, Rose Urdialez, Olga Zertuche, Alejandra S. Amie, Nara Deleon, and Sylvia Diahnn Sanchez (“Sanchez”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) were exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, because they were “executives” under 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a). Plaintiffs also appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to reconsider. Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of SWB on Plaintiff Sanchez’s retaliation claim.

We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough memorandum and order dated September 30, 2007, granting SWB’s motion for summary judgment, and its memorandum and opinion dated December 20, 2007, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.