2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-31-2014

Dennis Pieretti v. Dent Enterprises

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket 13-1631

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Dennis Pieretti v. Dent Enterprises" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 129.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/129
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 13-1631

__________

DENNIS PIERETTI,

 Appellant

v.

DENT ENTERPRISES; KEVIN DENT

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-11-cv-02179)

District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 13, 2013

BEFORE: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 31, 2014)

__________

OPINION OF THE COURT

__________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge
2

Dennis Pieretti appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of 

Dent Enterprises.

1

 Pieretti claims that Dentco failed to pay him overtime, in violation of 

the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 333.101-333.115) and the 

Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 260.1-260.12). 

He also claims a breach of contract. We will affirm.

This opinion lacks any precedential value and so we write solely for the parties, 

whose familiarity with the case obviates the need for a full recitation of the facts and 

procedural history. We exercise plenary review. Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia, 719 

F.3d 295, 299 (3d Cir. 2013). 

We reject Pieretti’s claim that the District Court burdened him with proving that 

his position was not exempt from statutory requirements for overtime pay. In asserting 

its affirmative defense, Dentco relied upon Pieretti’s testimony to substantiate its 

argument that his Quality Assurance Manager position fit within the Minimum Wage 

Act’s administrative exemption. See 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 333.105(a)(5). The District 

Court’s reference to this evidence at summary judgment in no way shifted the burden of 

proof to Pieretti. 

Next, we are not persuaded that Pieretti’s occasional performance of a few labororiented tasks—such as occasionally clipping a few stray weeds to enhance his 

photographic report of the subcontractors’ landscaping work—created a factual dispute 

on whether the administrative exemption applied to his job with Dentco. In each 

instance, Pieretti admitted that these tasks were done in the context of his evaluative and 

 1 Pieretti does not contest the District Court’s grant of Kevin Dent’s motion to dismiss. 
3

reporting responsibilities on the work done by subcontractors. As a result, these tasks 

were “directly and closely related” to the performance of his administrative job (34 Pa. 

Code §231.83(4)), and did not create a need for Dentco to quantify the time spent on 

them. We do not find any factual disputes.

Regarding Pieretti’s remaining Minimum Wage Act claim, the characterization of 

his position as “production” and his minimization of the independent discretion it 

involved were futile attempts to recast his job. The District Court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of Dentco was based upon its consideration of the responsibilities 

comprising his job, such as: recommending subcontractors, on-site evaluation of 

subcontractor work, recommending corrective action or termination for poor performance 

of subcontractors, and managing business relationships with customers. It also 

considered Pieretti’s autonomy in setting his schedule and in determining the 

composition of his work day. The District Court did not err.

Finally, Pieretti’s breach of contract and WPCL claims lack merit. The District 

Court correctly ruled that Pieretti failed to produce any evidence of Dentco’s contractual 

obligation to pay overtime wages and that, in the absence of such a contract, the WPCL 

provides no independent right for Pieretti to sue. Accordingly, the District Court 

properly dismissed both claims. 

For all of these reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.