[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-12827

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21799-MGC

JERRY ROBIN REYES, and all others similarly 

situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B),

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

GOYA FOODS, INC., d.b.a. Goya Foods of Florida,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 6, 2013)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-12827 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jerry Robin Reyes appeals the district court’s directed verdict in favor of his 

former employer, Goya Foods, Inc., in his action to recover overtime wages under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 (“FLSA”). No reversible error has 

been shown; we affirm.

Reyes was employed by Goya as a “sales broker.” After Goya terminated 

Reyes’s employment, Reyes filed suit against Goya, seeking overtime pay under 

the FLSA. The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which Reyes presented the 

testimony of five witnesses, including himself. At the conclusion of Reyes’s 

case-in-chief, Goya moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). The district court granted Goya’s motion, determining that 

Reyes qualified as an “outside salesman” within the meaning of the FLSA and, 

thus, was exempt from the Act’s overtime pay provision. 

In reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict, we 

apply the same standard of review as applied by the district court. Carter v. 

Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1989). A directed verdict is granted properly 

if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, 

Case: 13-12827 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

“point[s] overwhelmingly in favor of one party, such that reasonable people could 

not arrive at a contrary verdict.” Id. 

Broadly speaking, the FLSA provides that employees are entitled to receive 

overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 207(a)(1). But the Act exempts expressly “outside salesmen” from this 

provision. Id. § 213(a). The employer bears the burden of proving that an 

employee qualifies as an outside salesman. See Gregory v. First Title of Am., Inc., 

555 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 2009). 

The term “outside salesmen” is defined as an employee “[w]hose primary 

duty is . . . making sales . . . and . . . [w]ho is customarily and regularly engaged 

away from the employer’s place . . . of business in performing such primary duty.” 

29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a). 

“Determination of an employee’s primary duty must be based on all the facts 

in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character of the employee’s job 

as a whole.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(a). Some of the factors we may consider when 

determining an employee’s primary duty are “the relative importance of the 

exempt duties as compared with other types of duties; the amount of time spent 

performing exempt work; the employee’s relative freedom from direct supervision; 

and the relationship between the employee’s salary and the wages paid to other 

employees . . . .” Id. Exempt outside sales work includes “work performed 

Case: 13-12827 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

incidental to and in conjunction with the employee’s own outside sales” and “other 

work that furthers the employee’s sales efforts.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.500(a). That an 

employee is compensated on a commission basis supports a determination that the 

employee is an “outside salesman.” See Gregory, 555 F.3d at 1309-10. 

Reyes characterizes his primary duty with Goya as “merchandizing” which 

included restocking store shelves, cleaning the products, and rotating merchandise. 

To the extent that Reyes spent time selling Goya products, Reyes alleges that he 

merely placed orders to replenish products already carried by his assigned retail 

stores. Reyes contends that he was not a salesman because he had no authority to 

negotiate the prices of Goya’s products. 

Reyes’s characterization of his duties as a sales broker for Goya is 

contradicted entirely by the testimony of Reyes’s other witnesses: two Goya sales 

brokers each with nearly 20 years’ experience, Reyes’s direct supervisor, and 

Goya’s vice president of sales. Each of these witnesses testified that a sales 

broker’s primary duty is to sell Goya products. Sales brokers are given weekly 

sales goals and are expected to talk regularly with their assigned retail store 

managers to promote new Goya products, request better product placement, and to 

reorder inventory. The witnesses testified consistently that Goya sales brokers did 

not report to the Goya offices on a regular basis except to attend monthly sales 

meetings, worked with little supervision, set their own schedules, and were paid a 

Case: 13-12827 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

commission based on their individual volume of sales. According to each witness, 

duties such as restocking store shelves, cleaning inventory, and rotating inventory

-- duties that Reyes contends are non-exempt -- are performed regularly by Goya 

sales brokers in conjunction with and in furtherance of their own sales efforts. 

Viewed in the light most favorable to Reyes, the evidence demonstrates that 

-- although Reyes may have personally spent little time promoting Goya products 

-- his position as a sales broker at Goya qualified him as an “outside salesman” 

under the FLSA. Because the evidence presented at trial “point[ed] 

overwhelmingly in favor of” Goya, the district court granted properly Goya’s 

motion for directed verdict.*

 

AFFIRMED.

 * Because we conclude that Reyes was an “outside salesman” exempt from the FLSA’s overtime 

wage provisions, we need not address Reyes’s remaining three arguments: (1) that the district 

court erred in determining that Defendant Frank Unanue could not be held individually liable 

under the FLSA for Reyes’s unpaid overtime wages; (2) that this case should be reassigned to a 

new district judge on remand due to judicial bias; and (3) that the district court erred by 

excluding portions of Unanue’s deposition from being read to the jury.

Case: 13-12827 Date Filed: 12/06/2013 Page: 5 of 5