NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 Cour t 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, 2 014 )

__________ OPINION OF THE COURT

__________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge2 Dennis Pieretti appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dent Enterprises

. 1 Pieretti claims that Dent co failed to pay him overtime, in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (43 Pa. Con s . Stat. § 333.101

- 333.115) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 Pa. Con s . Stat. § 260.1

- 260.12). He also claims a breach of contract . We will affirm. This opinion lacks any precedential valu e and so we write solely for the parti es, whose familiarity with the case obviates the need for a full recitation of the facts an d procedural history. We exercise plenary review. Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia , 719 F.3d 295, 299 ( 3d Cir. 2013)

. We reje ct 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, Dent co relied upon Pierett i ’s testimony t o substantiate its argument that his Quality Assurance Manager position fit within the Minimum Wage
Act’s administrative exemption

. See 43 Pa. Con s . Stat. § 333.105(a)(5). The District Court’s reference to this evidence at summary judgment in no way shifted the bur den of proof to Pier etti. Next, we are not persuaded that Pieretti’s occasional perform ance of a few labor

oriented tasks

— such as occasionally clipping a few stray weeds to enhance his photographic report of the subcontractor s’ landscaping work

— created a factual disput e

on whether the administrative exemption applied to his job with Dent co . In each instance, Pieretti admitted th at these tasks were done in th e 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, thes e 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 Dent co to quantify the time spent on them . We do not find any factual disputes. Regarding Pieretti’s remainin g Minimum Wage Act claim, the characterization of his position as “production” and his minimization of the ind ependent discretion it involved were futi le attempt s to reca st his job. The District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Dent co was bas ed upon its consideration of the responsibilities compris ing his job, such as : recommending subcontractors, on - site evaluation of subcontractor work , recommending corrective action or termination for poor performance of subcontractors, and managing busine ss relationships with customers

. It also considered Pieretti’s autonomy in setting his schedule and in determining the composition of his work day. The District Cou rt did not err

. Finally, Pieretti’s breach of contract and WPCL claims lack merit. The D istrict Court correctly ruled that Pieretti fail ed to produce any evidence of Dent co ’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 D istrict Court properly dismissed both claims

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