tast or the administrative exemptions set forth in the former federal regulations which illinois adopted a fact of april second two thousand and four are the date on which the most recent amendment to the illinois minimum wage law became law the trial court erred in failing to apply this test that tests in this case that the outside there are certain policy considerations that that are critical to the court's analysis here first and foremost it's the general rule in illinois have that the workers must be played over time for hours worked in excess of forty in the work week and while this may seem very basic a first class it's important because it's the it is the general  and so exceptions to that rule like the administrative exemption must be narrowly construed also in the trial court construed the exemption much too broadly here also the fact that the exemption is an exception to the overtime or all means that the it's clear in the preamble to the outlaw and in the two thousand and four amendments to that law that the legislature clearly has a fair of the broadest protections possible to own our workers and the least of which is that the new regulations that is the current two thousand and four regulations that the only legislation reject that materially affect the outcome in this case here let's look let's get  wrong task they had to make one hundred fifty five dollars a week at a minimum and up to two fifty a week and under the short task if they made to fifty or one week or more are they at the they were subject to the shor thousand dollars a year in the only difference between the two is one you use the long form him one here's the short form for determination fahd's compensated amount sorry specified as proposed in federal is there really any question here i mean what what's the problem it's against the manifest way now there are areas of log replete with what the trial court did and let me outline some of them to you first savant under the two thousand and three regulations that govern in this case the threshold issue in any duties analysis is identifying them and employees primary duty and the two thousand and three regulations that apply in this case have it a percentage of time task that was the regulations in the case i say the threshold inquiry is actually our primary duties not the assigned duties which is precisely what the court focused on assigned duties triggers another problem and that is that the to enough to take it out of the skills that and if you look at the language of the regulations it says that and i'm paying when the price is knowledge and following prescribed procedures are determining which procedure to follow who determines whether specified standards are mad or whether or not to cross into one or another of a number of jeff integrates classes or categories is not exercising discretion independent judgment within the meaning and the exemption and this is the part this is true even if there is some leeway in reaching a conclusion as one acceptable standard includes a range or tolerance above or below a specific standard one  conclusion it's not a fact not a palpable fact now whether we like it or not the supreme court has adopted this mixed question of law in fact stamper which would mean that this would  know the legislature didn't say we're adopting the new tots and so i think i agree that there is you can read the statute the way that i think your honor has suggested but i also think you can read it the way we suggested with what stands out as there is an ambiguity and the statute and if there's an ambiguity in the statute then we can look to the illinois department of labor's construction and i think that's precisely what the court should have done and didn't do in this case quilt here in its in not understanding if you well the requirement that the two thousand rags state that if an employer meets those ties if they are employing gauges in running the business itself or determining its overall course or policies but not if the employee is just involved in the day to day operations or carrying out of the business affairs and that's precisely what adjuster treated its employees its adjusters as production workers they sold last numbers services to the general public in terms of the good hands buys in their marketing materials and they treated us adjusters as production workers in terms of giving them production goals and records and metrics against which to measure their success through the process mastery department it indeed is precisely this type of evidence administrative where because the work they performed was primarily functional as opposed to administrative in nature and also with respect to the first prong there is a requirement of substantial importance the regulations require that the administrat task is not mapped merely because there's a financial consequence to what the adjusters do or don't do and that's precisely what the trial court how then allstate argue more specifically under the regulations the substantial minister of exemption as well supported the rector for four reasons or simple fifty to sixty percent of the time the adjusters determination was outside the colossus evaluation guidelines they were exercising their independent judgment and discretion these were pools and the court made findings of fact that they were tools to to auto physical damage two to three million dollars the average total loss representative forty five million dollars that's real money they are the ones who make the decision on how to spend that money whether to spend that money on whom to spend them when they judgment discretion if you will with a person in the marketplace not just a current customer but those who are not customers that's what the court found three one expert testified there were other records minus that expert one expert testif one of the law this is not a question of first impression it wonder why carries off incorporates and your honor has a spot in terms of a question about the statue the federal regulations a certain way all introverting the federal regulations which are incorporated those two thousand and three regulations the same way and then of course we have one other factor in two thousand two hundred member of the nineteenth and it's in the record the that's all that it does the plain and unambiguous statute does not support the reading of the players but let's assume that we're wrong let's assume that plaintiffs have a point that they're not seeking to rewrite the statute that somehow facts of record establish the long test the satisfied but it does standard review in your mind that the question of question of whether the respects if true equal the two elements of the short form correct question of well clearly wrong the application of lot of fact hope that the that just as have skilled expertise but that doesn't mean the technical jobs are not just that it was doctors and what made findings explaining that the skill and expertise are necessary in order to do the job of exercising that then adjustment discretion in order to do the job casual work i asked a number of the plaintiffs in cross examination about that they have a problem having skill and expertise in doing their job they said no of course we needed to do our job well but that kind of circular argument if would have to rewrite the minimum wage act i think to delete the short test to write language into it this is only the long test applies and to fundamentally change the entire approach all based upon i've agency process it's had a rationale i don't i don't really know what to do with this hour so that you know deference is one thing but ever getting the judicial right of review to an agency some staffer who put something on the web for all i and we were all take great deference in terms of looking at the new regulations and the romantic worked at the same thing seven circuits of the same thing referencing that same provision a cases are based on just issues that adopt the two thousand and four regulations that the only legislature expressed they rejected and so i think that's an important point to consider in terms of the error was committed here and a the primary injuries define how directly related is defined whether the dichotomy applies in the particular case those regulations those aspects of the regulations are materially different between two thousand and three and two thousand and four and and this particular provision about insurance adjusters and certain classes of employees who will be deemed to be exam to stay under the duty status if they have certain job duties there is nothing in the form of regulations  comparable and again that's what the courts relied on including the trial court i think it's also certain to note that the way the trial court approached this case the way i'll say approach it's prudent in this case was to rely on the buzz words of exemption a few well things like from the two thousand and two opinion letter which which were focused on words like negotiating without defining what that means which focus on things like interviewing and at you know here also with employers interviewed according to scripts everything was prescribed that's what skill based decision making is about that's the kind of decision making that the regulations with decision making based on discretion and just which is exam work and i think that that is is a heart of the problem with the trial court's findings and conclusions is that doesn't engage in the kind of primary injury announces that the regulation requires in terms of the ordinary rule of thumb saying that you have to look at whether fifty percent or more of the adjuster's duties are performed doing