The Honora ble Kar l S. For ester, United States District J udg e for the Easter n Dist ri ct of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0262n.06 F iled: May 15, 2008 No. 07-5315 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
RO SAN N M . W ILK S, e t a l. , Plaintif fs-Appellee

s , v. THE P EP BOY S, Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE an d GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and F OREST ER, DistrictJudge. * R. GU Y COLE, JR., Cir cuit Judge. Plaintiffs, employ ees or former employ ees of The Pep Boy s (“De fenda

nt” or “ Pep Boy s”), f

iled suit unde r 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fa ir L abor Standa rds Act (“F L SA”) on behalf of themselves and others simil arly situated, alleg ing that De fe n dant unlawfully

deprive d t h em of their r ight to over time compensation. De fenda nt filed a motion for partial summ ary

judgme nt, arguing that, under 29 U.S.C. § 207(i), Plaintiffs are exempt from the FL SA’s overtime pay require ments beca use they wer e paid in the form of commission. The district
c ourt de nie d th e mot ion , h old ingtha t D e fe nd ant’ s f

lat- ra te pa y me nt s y ste m do e s n ot q

ua lif y a s a commission under the F L SA, but subsequently cer tified the issue for

interlocutory

appea l.2

Thoug h we g ener ally

revie w de novo a district c ourt’s g rant of summar y judgme nt, Miller

v . A dm in. Of

fic e of t heCou rts , 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006), on interlocutory appea l, “we ha

ve no authority

to review t h e district court’s finding s of fa ct, but must confine our r eview to pur e question s o f l aw.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v . W alcher &Fox, Inc

. , 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 ( 6th Cir. 2001) (c iting Foster W

heele r Energy Corp. v

. Metro. Know Solid W aste Auth., Inc. , 970 F.2d 199, 202 (6th Cir.1992) (“O n interlocutory appea l the appellate court ha s no authority to reviewdisputed questions of fac t.”))

. There fore , on appea l, Pep Boy s is lim ited to challeng ing the district court’s le g a l c on c lus ion s and c ann ot re lit ig a te fa c tua l i ss ues. Se e Gr e go ry v . Ci ty of L ou isv ill e , 444 F.3d 725, 742-43 (6th Cir. 2006) (“ To the ex tent that an appellant on an int erloc utory appea l argues issues of fa ct and law

on appea l, this C ourt will only enter tain pure issues of

law.”)
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a c c ur ate ly

no te d th at alt ho ug h th e te rm “ c omm iss ion ” is n ot d e fi ne d in
e ith e r t he st atut e or

its imp le me nti ngre g ulatio ns , th is C ourt e xplic itl y

ins tr uc ts that ov e rt ime
e xemp tio ns are “ a ff

ir mativ e de fe ns e [s] on whi c h th e e mpl oy e r h a s th e burd e n o f p ro of , a nd tho se exemptions are to be nar

rowly construed a g ainst the employ ers seeking to asser t them.” Thomas v. Sp e e dwa ySu pe rA me ric a, LLC , 506 F.3d 496, 501- 02 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) (i n t ernal quotations and citations omitt ed). The district court re jected D efe ndant’s def

inition of “ commission” and found,
a s matte r o f l aw, that to c on sti tut e a c omm iss ion u nd er 29 U.S .C. § 2 07 (i ), the e mpl oy e r m us t establish some proportionality betwee n the compensation to the employ ees a nd the amount cha

rg ed to t he c us tom e r. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt re a c he d it s con c lus ion a ft e r tho ro ug hly ana ly zingre le va

nt c a se law a nd De pa rtme nt of L abor p ub lic a tio ns , n oti ngthat “ the pr e c e de nt c ite d b y bo th p art ie s se e ms to reinfor ce
— o r at least not undermine—the need f or propor tionality in any commission-based sy stem.” W

ilks v. Pep B oys , 2006 WL2821700, at *14 (M.D. Te nn. Sept. 26, 2006).3

Given that the r eleva

nt authority supports a proportionality require ment to the over time pay exemption under the FL SA, and that cour ts must i nterpre t such exemptions narrowly and ag ainst the employ er, see, e.g., Thomas , 506 F.3d at 501-02, we c onclude that the district c ourt’s compre hensive and we ll-rea soned opinion supports its l eg al conc lusion and the denial of D efe ndant’s motion for pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt. B e c a

us e the iss ua

nc e of a de ta ile d w ri tte n o pin ion

by thi s Co ur t w ou ld be repetitious, the j udg ment rende red by the Honorable Aleta A. Traug er is af firmed on the ba sis of the re asoningset forth in the Septembe r 26, 2006 opinion and orde r.