## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1902 T AM M Y S CHMI DT, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. E AGLE W AST E & R EC Y CL I NG, I NC ., D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:0 8-cv-00 23 0-bbc

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 2, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 22, 2010

B efore P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cui tJudg e . The pl ai nti ff, Tam m y S chm i dt, b ro u gh t t h is a c tio n for m on et ar y re lief u n d er th e F air LaborS tandards Act ( “FLSA”), al l eging t h at she was not p aid ov er tim e d u e u n d er th e A c t. T h e d efe n d an t, E ag le Wa s t e a n d R e c y c l i ng, In c . ( “ E a g l e ” ) , mo v e d f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent, ar gui ng tha t S chm i dt w as exem pt fro m the a ct b ecause she w as ei ther an “outs i de sal esper son” or a co m bina ti o n ofan “o ut si de s al es per so n” a nd a n “ admi n-2 N o. 09

- 1902

Thi s s um m ar y o f the undi s put ed fac t s c om es m ai nl y fro m 1 the di s t ri c tcourt ’ s opi ni on, whi c h i s i n tur n l ar ge l y bas ed o n E ag le’ s pr op o se d find ing s of un d ispu ted f act. W e ad d ress Sch m id t’ s arg u m en t that th is sum m ary un fairly d eem s tho se fi ndi ngs adm i t t ed i n Pa rtI I ofthi s opi ni on. i str ati ve em plo yee . ” Tak in g Eagl e’ s pro posed fi nd i ngs o ff a c t a s t ru e b ec au se Sc h m id t fa iled to co n te st th em in the m anner pr es c ribed by the l oca lr ule s, the dist ri ct cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent for the defe nd ant. Schm i dt appeal s, ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct c ourt er ro neousl y deni ed heran opportunity to cure the defe cts i n her r es po ns e br i ef, f ai l ed to “ l ibe r al l y c o ns true ” th e F LS A, a nd in c or re c tly ap p lied th e “ ou ts id e sale sp er so n ” an d “c om b in a t i o n ” e x e mp t i o n s t o th e F L S A. We a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und 1 Eagl e, a co r po r at i o n l o ca te d i n Ea g l e Ri ve r, W i sc o ns i n, i s i n th e b u s i n e s s o f wa s t e r e mo v a l fr o m r e s i d e n t i a la nd com m er ci al proper ti es. A l an A lbee i s the presi de n t of Eagl e a nd has been si nce i ts f ounding on Jul y 1 , 20 05. Alb ee hi r ed S ch m i dt o n S ept em ber 12 , 2 00 5. Acco r di ng to Eagl e, Sc hm i dt w as hi re d as a sa l es re prese ntati ve and adopted the t i tl e o f“a ccount re prese ntati ve” w i th A lbee’ s per m i ssi on. S chm i dt re port ed to A lbee, her sole sup ervisor. Sch m idt’s d ut ies inc lud ed c ont actin g pot en tial com m erci alc us to m er s atthe i r pl ac es o fb us i ne ss a nd c o nv i nc i ng them to use Eagl e’ s waste dispos aland re cycl i ng se rv i ces. S he was re spo ns ibl e f o r b r i ng i ngi n n ew c us to m er s, a ndN o. 09

- 1902 3

m aint aini nga nd i nc r ea sing the b us i ne ss o fe xi st i ng c ustom er s. S chm i dt spent s om e t i m e in the offi ce o n approxi m ate l y hal fo fherworkdays

. O n t hose days, she was i n the offi ce b etween one and f our hours. S ch m i dt spe ntf o urt o e i g htho ur s a dayo ut si de th e offi ce m aking s ale s ca l l s t o curr ent a nd pote nti alcusto m er s. Sc h m id t w ou ld sc h ed u le in

- p er so n sa les ca lls in the m or ni ngs a nd afternoons so th at she c oul d m eet w i th the se custo m er s o n the w ay to and fr om the offi ce. She contr ol l ed the am ount of ti m e she sp en t o n thes e cal l s . S he wa s a l s o a utho r i z e d t o n e g o t i a t e p r i c e s wi th custo m er s. F or hereff or ts, she w as pai d a co m m i ssi on on s al es i n additi on t o her base sa l ar y. S ch m i dt a l so had pro m o ti o na land mar k et i ngdut i es . S he confer re d fr equentl y with A lbee to deter m i ne n ew l oca ti ons and busin es ses to ta rg et. S chm i dt w oul d then d e v e l o p a ma r k e t i ng c a mpa i g n th a tAlb e e wo u l d r e v i e w. S ch m i dt spe ntt i m e i n a nd o uto fthe o ffi ce pr o m o ting E agle

. Fo r exam ple , she att ended w eek l y c ham bero f co m m er ce meet i ng s an d s o ci alfunc ti o ns , w he r e sh e distributed busi ness car ds and flyer s, ta l ked to ar ea b us i ne s s pe o pl e , an d s o l d s e r v i c e s Ea g l e o ffe r e d. S c hmi dt sp e n ta p p r o x i ma t e l y fi v e o r s i x h o u r s a we e kp r o mo ti ng Eagl e o utsi de the offi ce, i ncl ud i ng two to f our hours a week a t ch ambe r o fc o m m er ce meet i ng s. S he s pen t an o th ert enho ur s a wee kwor k i ngo n pro m o ti o na la nd m ar ket i ng eff or ts at the o ffi ce. Fina l l y, S chm i dt w as re sponsibl e forcusto m erse rv i ce an d m aint aini ng the c us to m erda taba se . S he made i nperso n vi si ts to re sol ve any s ervice probl em s hercus-4 N o. 09

- 1902 tom er s had, r angi ng fro m co nfu si on with nei ghbor s’ conta i ne rs to bi l l i ng and acco unti ng. H erdataba se tr acke d curr ent custom er s, pro spects , and l ostcusto m er s. She used the databas e t o col l ect m oneyo w ed by her c u st om er s, so m eti m es adj usti ng bi l l s i fa custo m erhad a co m pl ainto r c o nc ern. The se c o l l ec ti o ns f orm ed the basi s o fherco m m i ssi on paym ents. Occasi onal l y, o ther em plo yee s consul ted S chm i dt w hen A lbee w as ou t of the o ffi ce. Fo r exam ple , i fa custo m er c o mpl a i ne d ab o uts e r v i c e , S c hmi dtw ou l d d e c i de w h e t h er to giv e t h e c u st om er a c re d it on th e n ex t b ill. If a ve hi cl e nee ded to be re pai re d, Schm i dt w oul d som eti m es a utho r i ze the o r der i ngo frep lac ementpa r ts wi th

out consul ti ng Albee

. W he n sh e w as hired i n Sep tem ber 2 0 0 5 , Schm idt’s ba se s al ar y was $ 38 4. 62 a wee kpl us c o m m i ss i o n. Be g i nni ng J anuary1, 2006, she re cei ved a base sa l ar y o f$4 61. 54 a w ee k p lu s c om m iss ion
. S h e re c eiv ed $2 6,3 19 .75 in com m i ssi ons du ring herti m e a s a n em plo yee o fEagl e, w hi ch ended on Decem ber31 , 20 07. Schm i dt br ought thi s a cti on in sta te cour t o n A pri l4, 20 08
. Ea g l e r emov ed the c as e to fede r alc o ur t an d a nsw er ed the com pla i nt on A pri l 23, 2008
. On M ay 15, 20 08, M agistrate Jud ge S t e p he n C rocker he ld a p retrialconference i n w hi ch he s et deadli nes for d isc ov er y a nd a tr i al dat e . No t i c e o fthe s e de a dl i ne s wa s s e ntt o b o th parti es a l o n gw i th a c o p y o fth e p r o c e d u r e s f o r b r i e fi n gs u mm ar y j ud gm ent m oti ons . Fo l l owing deposi ti ons of Sch m idt an d A lbee, E ag le fil ed i ts m otion for su m m ary j ud gm ent o n N ove m ber13 , 20 08
. S chm i dt fi l ed herbr i efN o. 09

- 1902 5 i n opposi ti on t o Eagl e’s m oti on o n Decem ber4, 20 08, bef or e the deadli ne of Decem ber 15, 2008
. That sam e d ay, she fi l ed a s w orn affi davi t m aking va ri ous s tat em ents i n s u p p o r to fh e r r e s p o n s e . Ea g l e fi l e d i t s r e p l y o n D e c e mber12 , 20 08, r ai si ng S chm i dt’s f ai l ure to re sp on d to i ts propos ed fi nd i ngs o ffac t i n acco rdance w i th the l oca l rul e a nd as ki ng th at Schm i dt’s affi davi t be st ri cken b e c a us e i tc o nt r a di c t e d h e r de po s i t i o n t e sti m on y . On Decem ber26 , 20 08, S chm i dt fi l ed a m oti on f orl eave to fi l e a sur - re plybr ief and to m odi fy herr esponse s t o Eagl e’ s pro posed fi nd i ngs o ff act. The br i efand propos ed fi nd i ngs o f fact she soughtto fi l e were not i ncl ud ed wi ththe mot i o n. On Febr uary25 , 200 9, th e di str i ct c ourtente re d an ord er de ny ing S ch m idt’s m otion for leave to fi le a su rr eply br i efand c o r r ec t he r pr o po se d fi ndi ng s o ff ac ts
. The sam e o rdergr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t t o Eagl e. Schm i dt now appeal s.

II . A n alysis At the o ut se t, we m us t a d dr es s S ch m i dt’ s ar g um en t th at th e d istri ct co u rt erred w he n it dee m ed Ea gle’s propos ed fi nd i ngs o ff act adm i tte d an d refused to consi der a dd i ti onalf acts al l eg ed b y S chm i dt. The di str i ct cour t di d so because S chm i dt f ai l ed to f ol l ow the l oca l r ul e f o r mak i ng a nd o pp o s i ng pr o po s e d fi nd i ng s off act f o r s um m ary j udg m en t, whi chr equi r ed he r t o r es po nd to the defendant’s pro posed fi nd i ngs par agr aph by par agr aph and p ut herow n p ro posed fi nd i ngs into separ ate num ber ed parag ra phs. Instea d, Schm i dt i nclud ed onl y a6 N o. 09

- 1902 “st ate m ent o ff acts ” o fthe sor t that m i ght b e found in an ap p ella t e b r i e f. W h ile th is s ta te m en t o f fac ts d id co n ta in som e pi npoint c itati ons, i t di d not di re ctl y r espond to Eagl e’ s pro posed fi nd i ngs a nd l um ped sev eraldi stinct f ac tu ala ss er ti o ns t o g ethe ri n e ac h pa r ag r aph

. W e hav e r outi nel y hel d that a di str i ct c ourtm ay st r i ct l y e nf o r ce c o m pl i an ce wi thi ts l o ca lr ul es r eg ar di ng su m m ar y jud gm en t m ot ion s. Se e, e . g. , Patt e rs on v. Indi ana Newspapers Inc. , 5 8 9 F
. 3 d 3 5 7, 3 6 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. Ind e e d, w e hav e pr evi ousl y u pheld a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on to e nfo r ce c o m pl i an ce wi ththe pr ec i se l o ca lr ul e ati ss ue h er e. See Hedric h v . B d. o f R egen ts of

U n i v. o f Wis. Sys. , 274 F.3d 1 174, 1 17 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. In Hedr ich , a s h e r e , t he no nm o ving par tydi d i nc l ude s o m e ci ta ti o ns t o the re c or d bu t fa iled to follo w t h e re q u ire m en t t h at sp ec ific f actualal l ega ti ons be m ade orco ntest ed i n num ber ed p ar ag ra p h s. Id. at1 17 8. S i m i l ar l y, a s i n Hedr ich , a separ ate r em i nd ero fthe l oc al rule acco m panie d noti ces se n t to th e p ar tie s. Id. S chm i dt’s r el i ance o n a pai r of Suprem e Cour t ca ses address i ng pl eadi ng stan dards, S wi e rki e wi cz v. S ore ma N. A. , 54 3 U. S
. 5 0 6 ( 2 0 0 2 ) a nd C o nley v. Gi b s on , 35 5 U.S
. 41 ( 1957 ) , i s m i spl aced. N ot onl y has Conl ey been abrog at ed by B el l Atlanti c v. Tw om bly, 55 0 U
. S. 554, 560- 63 ( 2007 ) , but the i ssue of noti ce ple ad in g is fun d am en tal l y di ffer ent fro m co m pli ance with the l oca l r ul e ati ss ue he r e. The local rul e se r ve s ani m po r ta nt functi on byensur i ng tha t the pro posed fi nd i ngs o ff act are in a f or m thatper m i ts the di str i ct c ourtto anal yze the adm i ssibl e evi dence supp or ting parti cul arfactual propos i ti ons and determ i ne pre ci sel y w hat f acts , i fany, ar e m at er ial a n d d isp u te d

. SeeHedr ich , 274 F. 3d at 11 78.N o. 09

- 1902 7

Schm idt als o sought le ave to fil e a sur- reply on th e “ sham 2 affi d avit ru l e, ” whic h Eagl e had ra i s ed i n i t s re pl y bri efto atta ck an affid av it filed b y Sc h m id t alon g w ith h er resp on se b rief. T he d istrict cou rt d en ied Sch m id t leav e to fil e a su r-rep ly and i ns t ea d dec i ded the s um m ar y j udgm en tm otio n wi thout r e ferenc e to E ag le’ s sham affid av it rule a rg u m en t. B eca u se thi s w as the only new ar g u m en t rai se d in Eag le ’ s reply brie f and the di s t ri c t c our t di d not re l y on i t, the di s t ri c tc our tdi d not abus e its di s c re t i on when i tden i ed S c hm i dt’ s r eques tf or l ea ve t o fi l e a s ur - re pl y. Thi s i s no t a hy per - te ch ni ca l rule tha t tu r ns “ pl ea di ng [ i nto] a gam e of ski l l i n w hi ch one m i sst ep by c ou n sel m ay be deci si ve of t h e outcom e, ” C o nley, 35 5 U.S
. at48
. Ra th er, the r ul e pr o vi des di st r ic t co ur ts wi ththe mean s to re so lve m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent o n the m er i ts. H er e, ev en afterS chm i dt w as i nfo rm ed ofthe defi ci enci es in he r resp ons e brief, she w aited tw o w eeks be fore ask i ng f orl eave to co rr ect her prop os ed finding s o ff act an d di d no t te nde r a c o r r ec te d v er si o n wi thhe r mot i o n. The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Schm idt had not gi ven an adequate expla nation forherdi sr ega rd o fthe l oca l r ul e s o r h e r de l a y i n a t t e mpt i ngto cu r e th e er r o r . S c hmi dt has no t e xplained w hy tho se fi nd i ngs were er ro neous. Consequentl y, the dist ri ct cour t did not abuse i ts d isc re ti o n whe n i t d en i ed S ch m i dt th e o ppo r tu ni tyt o a m en d h e r r e s p o n s e b r i e fa n d p r o p o s e d fi n d i n g s o ff a c t
. We 2 th er efo r e p roce ed, a s th e di st r i ctc o ur t di d, o n the fi nd i ngs o ff act propos ed by Eagl e. N ext, w e add re ss Schm i dt’s ar gum ent that s he was not an “o utsi de sal esper son” as defined i n the FLSA r egul a-8 N o. 09

- 1902 ti ons. The S ecr eta ryo fLabordefi n es an “o utsi de sal esperso n” as an e m plo yee ( 1) wh ose “pri m ar y duty” consi sts of“m aking sa les ” or“obtaini ng o rder s o r contr acts f or se rv ice s” an d (2) w h o is “ c u st om ar ily an d reg u lar ly engag ed away fro m the em plo yer ’s pla ce o r pla ces of bus i ne ss i n pe r f o r m i ngs uchpr i m ar y duty . ” 29 C. F
. R. § 541.5 00 ( 20 09 )
. An e m pl o y ee ’ s “pr i m ar y duty ” i s th e “pr i nc i pal, mai n, maj o r, o r mos t i m po r ta ntduty tha t th e em plo yee per form s. ” Id. § 541.700. T im e sp en t pe rf or m i ng exe m pt w or k i s use ful, but not dispos i ti ve, ind et er m in in g a n em p lo y e e ’s p rim ar y d u ty
. Id. The burden i s o n the em p loy erto pro ve that an em plo yee i s e xem pt und erFLSA, see P is ci onev. Er ns t& YoungLL P , 17 1 F
. 3d 52 7, 5 33 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) , a nd s uche xe m pti o ns ar e t o be nar ro w l y c onst rued ag ai n st t h e e m plo yer se ek in g t h e e x em p tio n . See Y i v. Sterlin g C o l l isio n C enters, Inc. , 480 F.3d 505 ( 7th Cir. 2007). W hi l e S chm id t argues that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to “libe r al l y c o ns true ” F LS A i n h erf av o r, the di st r i ctc o urt i den ti fi ed th e co r r ec t l eg als ta nda r d and appl i ed i t to the f acts befor e the cou rt . The undis pu ted f acts sho w that Schm i dt’s pri m ar y duty w as outsi de sa les

. On aver age , S ch m i dt spe ntf o urt o e i g htho ur s a dayo ut si de th e offi ce m aking i n-per son sa l es cal l s. S he vi si ted the o ffi ce o n o nly ab o ut ha l f o f he r wo r k da y s . At the o ffi c e , m uch o fhe r wor kfur th er ed he r e ff o r ts to m ak e sa l es . S he m ai nt ain ed a database o fhercusto m er s, wh i ch f or m ed the b asi s o fherco l l ecti ons and com m i ssi on paym ents. This sor t o fwork r elat es dir ectly t o her outsi de sal es w or k a n d is th u s e x em p t it se lf. See 29 C.F
. R. § 541. 703N o. 09

- 1902 9 ( 20 09 )
. S he a l so s pen t ab o utt enhours a wee kde ve l o pi ng m arketing p lans an d doin g ot he r prom otional w ork i ns i de th e o ffi ce, a nd fi ve t o s i x h o ur s a wee kpr o m o ting E agle outsid e of th e office. Othe r t h an A lbee, E agle’s presi dent , w h o m ade so m e s al es dir ectly, ther e do not ap p ea r to h av e b ee n an y o th er E ag le e m p loy ee s d ire c tly involved i n sales w ork. M ost of th e fruits ofSchm idt’s prom oti onalwork w er e there f or e r eal i zed thr ough her own sal es. Thu s, thi s prom oti onal w or k al so coun ts as ex em p t o u ts id e s ale s w or k. See i d. § 54 1.5 03( a) ( prom oti o na lwor ki s ex empt i f it i s “inc i den ta lt o a nd i n c o nju n c tio n w ith an em p loy ee ’s o w n ou ts id e s ale s o r so licitat i ons” but non- exem pt i fi t “ i s in c id en talto sa l es m ad e, or to be m ad e, by som eon e else”). W e a lso ag re e w ith th e d ist ric t c ou rt t h a t e ve n if S ch m i dt di d no t qua l i fy f o rthe o ut side s al es per so n e xem p tio n on i ts own , she w oul d fa l lwithi n the “co m bi nation ex em p tion” to th e FL S A . E m p loyees “w ho p erform a com bi nati on of exem pt du ti es as set f or th i n th e regula

t i o ns i n thi s p a r tf o r . . . a dmi ni s t ra ti v e [ a nd ] o ut s i de sa l es . . . e m pl o y ee s m ayqua l i fyf o r e xe m pti o n. ” 29 C. F
. R. § 5 4 1
. 7 0 8 ( 2 0 0 9 )
. Ea g l e a r g ue s tha tt o the e xt e ntS c hmi dt p erform ed du ties un related to outsid e sales, thes e w ere lar ge ly ex em p t “ ad m in ist ra tiv e” d u tie s. See i d. § 541. 200. Be f o r e we p r o c e e d t o the me r i t s o fEa g l e ’ s a r g ume nt, h ow ev er , w e m u st ad d re ss Sc h m id t’s cla i m t h at E ag le ha s wai ve d a ny r el i an ce o n the c o m bi na ti o n e xe m pti o n. Schm i dt ar gues that the c om bi nati on e xem pt ion i s a n affir m at ive d efe n s e t h at sh ou ld h av e b ee n rais ed in10 N o. 09

- 1902

E ag le d i d no t raise the ou tsid e salesp erso n d efense in its 3 an sw er, eith e r . Sch m id t, ho w ev er, do es no t arg u e tha t E ag le has waived thatdef ense . Eagl e’ s a nsw er . S he al so ar gu es t h at, i n re sponse to a 3 re quest t o adm i t, Eagl e a dm i tte d that S chm i dt w as not ana dm i ni st r at i ve e m p loye e. S ch m i dt m ade the se a r g um en ts , whi chs he fr ames a s ani ssu e o f “e st o ppel, ” to the dist ri ct c ourto n su m m ar y j ud gm ent, but the di str i ct cour t di d not m enti on waiv ero r est oppel i n i ts opi ni on gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent. W hile Fed

. R
. C iv. P. 8(c) d irects p arties to r a is e a ffi r m at i ve de fenses i n the pl ea di ng s, a de l ayi n r ai sing an affi rm ati ve defe nse o nl y r esul ts i n w ai verif th e other p ar ty is p rej u d ice d as a re su lt. Se eCur t i s v. Tim berlake, 436 F. 3d 709, 71 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. Eagle d id notr ai se th e a d m in ist ra tiv e o r c om b in at ion e x em p tio n s e x p licit ly i n i t s a ns we r . I tdi d, h o we v e r, de nytha tS c hmi dtwa s a c o v e r e d e mpl o y e e u nd e r F LS A a nd de nytha tS c hmi dt w as a non ex em p t em p loyee. Th e nat ure of Sch m idt’s w or k was the pri m ar y focus ofthe d ep osi ti ons ofA lbee and Schm i dt. S chm i dt ar gues that E agle m i sl ed herby denyi ng i n dis cove rythatshe w as an “a d m in i str ato r” as defined i n the FLSA r egul ati on s. B ut the re quest t o admi t was i ts el fmis l ea di ng

— “adm i ni str ato r” i s defi ned on ly a s t h e A d m in ist ra to r ofth e W ag e a n d H ou r D ivisio n . See 29 C. F
. R. § 5 41
. 1 (2009). A l th o ug h i t se ems u nl i kel y that Eagl e’ s co unseltho ught S chm i dt w as ask i ng the m to adm i t that s he was the A dm i n i str ato r of th e W ag e an d H ou r D ivis ion, rat h er th an ina rt fu llyN o. 09

- 1902 11 ask i ng i fEagl e intende d to i nvoke the adm i ni str ati ve ex empti o n, Ea g l e’ s r es po ns e was l i te r al l y t r ue a nd the confusi on, i fany , s tem s fro m S chm i dt’s vague r equest to adm i t. In any eve nt, Eagl e’s c onsis tent posi ti on that Schm i dt w as an exem pt em plo yee and the cour se of disc ove ryas a w hol e sh ou l d have put S chm i dt on no ti ce th at th e admi ni st r at i ve a nd c o m bina ti o n e xe m pti o ns w er e a t i ssue. Eagl e r ai sed the com bi nati on and adm i ni strative ex em p tions in its open ing brief on su m m ary j ud gm ent a nd S chm id t ar gu ed them o n the m er i ts i n her r es po ns e br i ef

. Be ca us e S ch m i dt ha s no t sh o wn an y prej ud i ce fro m Eagl e’ s del ay i n ra i si ng the adm i ni str ati ve an d com b in ation ex em p tions to FL SA , the d istri ct cou rt did notabuse i ts disc re ti on in re ach in g the m er i ts. C urt is , 43 6 F
. 3d at 711. W e ag r ee wi ththe di st r i ctc o ur t th att o the e xt en t Schm i dt’s work w as not re l ate d to outsi de sal es, i t was pri m ar i l y exem pt adm i ni str ati ve w or k. The adm i ni str ati ve em plo yee exem pti on appli es to any e m plo yee wh o i s: ( 1) Com pensated o n a s al ar y o r fee basi s a t a r ate of n otles s t h an $4 55 p er w ee k . . .; ( 2) W hose pri m ar y duty i s the p er f or m ance ofo ffi ce ornon- m anual work dir ectly r el ate d t o th e m anage m e nto r g e ne r a lb us i ne s s o pe r a t i o ns o fthe e mpl oye r o r the e m pl o y er ’ s cus to m er s; a nd ( 3) W hose pri m ar y duty i ncl ud es the e xerci se of disc re ti on a nd i nd ependent ju dgm ent with re spect to m att er s o fsi gni fi cance. 29 C.F
. R. § 541. 200 ( 2009 )
. W i th the exce pti on o fherfi rs t few months o fe m pl o y m en t, S ch m i dt’ s ba se sa l ar y e x-12 N o. 09

- 1902

T he r ec or d re fl ec t s on l y the t ot al ofSc hm i dt’ s c om m i s s i on 4 paym en ts. Spr ea d ove r the c our s e ofhe r em pl oym en t, s he rec ei ved an average of $225 per w eek i n com m is si on. Thu s, even Schm idt’ s lower w eek ly s alar y of$384 ex cee ded the $455 m inim u m w he n co m b ined w ith h er co m m ission p ay m en ts. ceeded the $455 perweek m in im u m . W hen Sc hm i dt w as 4 no t ac ti ve l y pur su i ngs al es , s he de ve l o ped adver ti sing and m ar ket i ng pl ans, m anage d custom erco m pla i nts, adm i ni ste re d the custo m erdataba se, and deal t with i ss ue s th atwoul d ha ve b ee n h an dl ed byAlbe e ha d he been i n the office , such a s a pp ro vi ng an or der o fpart s for br ok en m ac h in er y. T h is offic e w o r k w as d ire c tly re l ate d to the m anage m ent an d ge nera lbusi ness oper at i on s o f E ag le. See id. § 5 4 1
. 2 0 1 ( “ W o r kdi r e c t l y r el ate d to m anage m ent o r gener albusi ness oper ati ons i ncl ud es, b u t is n otlim ite d to , w or k in fu n c tio n al a re a s s u c h a s . . . pu rchas i ng; procur em ent; ad ve rt isin g; m ar ke ti ng; re se ar c h ; . . . pe rs on n el m an a g e m e n t; . .
. p u b lic re l ati ons; . . . databa se adm i ni strat i on; . . . and si m i l ar ac tiv itie s.” ); see also Ha yw o o d v . No rth A m erica n V a n L ines, Inc. , 12 1 F
. 3d 1066 , 1067- 68 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( fi nd i ng custom erse rv i ce c oordi natorf orshi pp i ng co m pany to be a n e xe mpta dmi ni s t r a t i v e e mpl o y e e )
. Whi l e S c hmi dt ar gues that A lbee “m i cro m anage d” her w or k, the und i sp ut ed f acts show that she n egotiat ed w ith cu stom ers o v e r p r i c e a n d s e r v i c e c r e d i t s , c r e a t e d ma r k e t i n gc a mpai gns, pl aced adver ti sem ents, co l l ecte d fr om accou n ts, and set her own sche du l e. C f. Haywood, 12 1 F
. 3d at 10 72 ( ho l di ngtha t r es o l vingc us tomerc o m pl aint s an d disputes abo ut bi l l i ng r eq u ire s the exer ci se ofdi scr eti onN o. 09

- 1902 13

an d ind ep en d en t jud gm en t). T h u s , th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id no t e r r b y ho l di ng tha t e v e n i f S c hmi dt ’ s pr i m ar y duty wa s n o to ut s i de sal es, the c o mbi na t i o n o fh e r o ut s i de sa l es a nd a dm i ni str at i ve wor ke xe m pts he r fr o m the FLSA ’ s o ver ti m e r equi re m ents.

I I I . Concl usio n W e AF FIRM the dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent t o Eagl e.

3- 22- 10