1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE MORGAN STANLEY SMITH 

BARNEY LLC WAGE AND HOUR 

LITIGATION

MDL 2280

Civ. No. 2:11-3121

OPINION

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

Plaintiffs Jimmy Kuhn, Nick Pontilena, Howard Rosenblatt and Denise Otten 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative collective action under the Fair Labors 

Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and three putative wage and hour class 

actions against Defendants Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co., 

Inc. (together “MSSB”). This matter comes before the Court on MSSB’s motion for

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Plaintiffs’ motion 

to strike portions MSSB’s response to Plaintiffs’ counterstatement of facts. There was no 

oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, MSSB’s motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED as moot.

I. BACKGROUND

MSSB is a financial services firm focused on providing financial advisory services 

and selling various investment products to a large and diversified clientele. See Op. 1, ECF 

No. 146. Plaintiffs worked for MSSB for varying durations as Financial Advisors (“FAs”). 

On May 31, 2011, Plaintiff Pontilena filed a class and collective action complaint in this 

Court, alleging that MSSB violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime wages, and that it 

violated New Jersey law by failing to pay overtime wages, making impermissible 

deductions from employees’ wages and failing to maintain records. See Compl. ¶¶ 49–90, 

ECF No. 1. This Court subsequently consolidated Pontilena’s claims with similar claims 

emanating from Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island, creating a multidistrict class 

and collective action against MSSB, alleging ten counts in violation of the FLSA and 

various state labor laws. See Order, ECF No. 15; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 60–160, ECF No. 17. 

During the ensuing litigation, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims except for the 

FLSA overtime claim and the Connecticut, New Jersey and New York overtime claims. 

See Ops., ECF Nos. 31, 56, 75; Third Am. Compl. (the “Complaint”) ¶¶ 53–80, 91–115, 

ECF No. 74. On April 11, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class action and 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 4203
2

conditional collective certification. See ECF No. 146. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ individual 

overtime claims are all that remain before the Court.

MSSB now moves for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining overtime claims, 

arguing: (1) the FLSA claim fails because Plaintiffs satisfied the administrative exemption

(hereinafter “the Exemption”), see Defs.’ Mem. of Points & Authorities in Supp. of Mot. 

for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Mem.”) 9–26, ECF No. 155-1; (2) Plaintiffs Otten, Pontilena and 

Kuhn also satisfied the highly compensated exemption, see id. at 26–28; (3) Plaintiffs 

Pontilena and Kuhn’s FLSA claims are time barred, see id. at 28–29; and (4) the 

administrative exemptions under the three state laws mirror the FLSA and Plaintiffs are, 

therefore, exempt under state law for the same reasons as they are under the FLSA, see id. 

at 29–30. Plaintiffs oppose the application of the Exemption, countering that genuine 

issues of material fact exist as to the following: (1) whether Plaintiffs were paid the required 

minimum salary of $455 per week, see Pls.’ Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.’ 

Opp’n”) 4–6, ECF No. 159; (2) whether Plaintiffs’ primary duty at MSSB was the 

performance of office or non-manual work directly related to MSSB’s management or 

general business operations, see id. at 6–36; and (3) whether Plaintiffs exercised discretion 

and independent judgment to significant matters, see id. at 36–39. Plaintiffs also contest 

MSSB’s other claims concerning the highly compensated exemption, the statute of 

limitations, and the state labor laws at issue. See id. at 39–43. MSSB filed a reply brief on 

December 15, 2016. See Defs.’ Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Reply”), 

ECF No. 161. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs’ filed a separate motion to strike portions of 

MSSB’s objections to Plaintiffs’ counterstatement of facts. See Pls.’ Mot. to Strike, ECF

No. 162. The Court will address both motions in the instant opinion.

The record before the Court consists primarily of deposition testimony given by the 

Plaintiffs and MSSB’s corporate representative, MSSB’s responses and objections to 

Plaintiffs’ requests for admission, MSSB internal documents and emails, Plaintiffs’ pay 

stubs and tax documents, and two third-party news articles. See Decls., ECF Nos. 155-4, 

156-2 (filed under seal), 160, 161-2. The parties purport to disagree over which facts are 

in dispute, but the Court finds that their disagreements mainly concern the legal 

significance of the facts and not what the facts actually are. After full review of the record, 

the Court finds the following facts to be relevant and undisputed:

1. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs maintained a Series 7 license as required by the 

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). Pls.’ Counterstatement of 

Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Pls.’ Counterstatement”) ¶¶ 7–10, ECF No. 159-1.

2. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs complied with FINRA Rule 2090, Know Your 

Customer (the “KYC Rule”), with respect to the establishment of new client 

accounts and management thereafter. Id. at ¶ 11; Otten Dep. 53:18–24; Pontilena 

Dep. 33:14–35:9; Kuhn Dep. 66:14–22; Rosenblatt Dep. 82:6–18. 

3. In compliance with the KYC Rule, Plaintiffs engaged each new client in the 

following manner: ascertained and analyzed the client’s financial status; discussed 

the client’s financial goals, risk tolerance and overall knowledge of the financial 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 11 PageID: 4204
3

industry; evaluated the client’s entire financial picture in light of the information 

received, including performing an asset allocation analysis; identified specific 

financial products that best fit the client’s specific needs; made investment 

recommendations to the client; and, upon client’s direction, invested assets 

accordingly. Otten Dep. 54:14–58:22; Pontilena Dep. 35:10–40:1; Kuhn Dep. 

69:5–73:15; Rosenblatt Dep. 81:1–82:18.

4. In compliance with the KYC Rule, Plaintiffs also monitored their existing clients’ 

accounts on a continual basis to ensure that performance met expectations and 

altered investment strategies as necessary to respond to their clients’ changing 

needs. Otten Dep. 78:15–79:15; Pontilena 40:2–41:8; Kuhn Dep. 71:8–72:6; 

Rosenblatt 86:11–88:8.

5. In making investment recommendations, Plaintiffs provided their clients with 

multiple options with which to invest, often selecting from hundreds of financial 

products provided by MSSB based on each client’s financial picture. See Otten 

Dep. 58:4–22; Pontilena Dep. 38:3–12; Kuhn Dep. 72:18–73:15, 75:6–7; Rosenblatt 

Dep. 106:5–22.

6. Plaintiffs researched economic developments, market movements and other current 

events to help inform the recommendations they made to their clients. Otten Dep. 

58:18–22, 59:24–61:1; Pontilena Dep. 70:25–71:12; Kuhn Dep. 79:20–80:8; 

Rosenblatt Dep. 100:4–10.

7. Plaintiffs made their investment recommendations in the best interest of their 

clients. Otten Dep. 58:14–17; Pontilena Dep. 38:13–23; Kuhn Dep. 67:12–18; 

Rosenblatt Dep. 102:3–9.

8. Plaintiffs never spent more than one hour of their time during a work-day executing 

purchases and sales for their clients’ portfolios. Otten Dep. 159:13–160:14; 

Pontilena Dep. 75:6–76:14; Kuhn Dep. 86:16–87:11; Rosenblatt Dep. 113:5–9.

9. Plaintiffs were supervised by branch managers. Plaintiffs’ interactions with their 

supervisors concerning work-related matters varied, the frequency of which ranged 

from daily to sparse. Otten Dep. 157:17–158:22; Pontilena Dep. 109:11–110:13; 

Kuhn Dep. 75:22–76:13, 184:14–185:9; Rosenblatt Dep. 150:11–18.

10.With very few exceptions, Plaintiffs did not require pre-approval from their 

supervisors to execute purchases and sales on behalf of their clients. Otten Dep. 

152:25–153:4; Pontilena Dep. 110:14–111:3; Kuhn Dep. 114:14–115:5; Rosenblatt 

Dep. 149:11–150:10.

11.Plaintiffs undertook various marketing activities designed to ascertain new clients, 

including “cold” and “warm” calling prospect leads1and hosting seminars and client 

 

1 Plaintiff Pontilena described the difference between “cold calling” and “warm calling” in the following way: “Warm 

calling is where you might know somebody, know who they are, but not ever approach them for business. So, you 

call somebody that you know through someone or what have you, and you just, you know, try to get a business 

appointment from that, as opposed to cold calling, where, you know, you’re totally cold, and you don’t know who 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 11 PageID: 4205
4

dinners. Otten Dep. 108:18–109:22, 120:22–24, 122:10–14; Pontilena Dep. 48:7–

49–22; Kuhn Dep. 56:13–23, 81:7–83:16; Rosenblatt Dep. 65:5–16, 82:19–83:5.

12.At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were paid a minimum of $1,972.00 in monthly 

compensation. Plaintiffs did not receive incentive-based compensation until their 

gross revenues exceeded their minimum monthly compensation. See Palmerini 

Decl. at ¶ 8, Ex. A; Liskow Decl., Ex. 1 at MS-006426; Otten Dep. 186:9–187:5;

Pontilena Dep. 91:8–93:3; Kuhn Dep. 179:14–184:3; Rosenblatt Dep. 117:15–

120:8. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides for summary judgment “if the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 

317, 322-23 (1986); Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). 

A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and 

is material if it will affect the outcome of the trial under governing substantive law. 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court considers all 

evidence and inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving 

party. Andreoli v. Gates, 482 F.3d 641, 647 (3d Cir. 2007).

III. DISCUSSION

Despite their attempts to create other disputes, the parties’ papers reveal that there 

is truly only one issue before the Court: whether Plaintiffs’ primary duty as FAs consisted 

of sales activity or whether that duty amounted to exempt activity as defined by regulatory 

guidance. Before turning to that issue, however, the Court will first address Plaintiffs’ 

motion to strike because it seeks to constrain what the Court may consider at summary 

judgment.

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike

Plaintiffs moved to strike portions of MSSB’s Objections and Responses to 

Plaintiffs’ Counterstatement of Facts (“MSSB’s Responses”) that violate Local Civil Rule 

56.1. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Local Rule 56.1 only allows MSSB to respond to 

Plaintiffs’ supplemental statement of facts and prohibits any contest to Plaintiffs’ responses 

to MSSB’s statement of undisputed facts. Pls.’ Mot. to Strike at 2. Furthermore, Plaintiffs 

argue that MSSB’s Responses are laced with impermissible legal argument, which the 

Court should not consider. Id. at 2–3.

While the Court agrees that MSSB’s Responses contain some impermissible 

content, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is unnecessary. The Court is “empowered to disregard 

those portions of a Rule 56.1 statement that violate the rule.” See Ill. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. 

Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc. 85 F. Supp. 3d 785, 792 (D.N.J. 2015). The Court, 

 

you’re talking to.” Pontilena Dep. 51:9–16.

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 11 PageID: 4206
5

therefore, “will sort out the permissibility of particular items [of both parties’ statements] 

if and as necessary to [its] analysis.” See id. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is 

DENIED as moot.

B. The FLSA Administrative Exemption

The Exemption applies to any employee:

(1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per 

week . . . exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities;

(2) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work 

directly related to the management or general business operations of 

the employer or the employer’s customers; and

(3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and 

independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a) (2016). 

Further explanation of the above criteria can be found elsewhere in the regulations. 

Relevant to the instant case, the “primary duty” requirement means that “an employee must 

perform work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the business, as 

distinguished, for example, from working on a manufacturing production line or selling a 

product in a retail or service establishment.” See § 541.201(a). Additionally, a primary 

duty may include “employees acting as advisers or consultants to their employer’s clients 

or customers (as tax experts or financial consultants, for example) . . . .” See § 541.201(c). 

The regulations identify factors to consider when determining an employee’s primary duty, 

including, but not limited to: (1) the relative importance of the exempt duties as compared 

to other types of duties; (2) the amount of time spent performing exempt work; and (3) the 

employee’s relative freedom from direct supervision. See § 541.700(a). “[E]mployees

who spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt work will generally 

satisfy the primary duty requirement,” but time alone “is not the sole test.” See § 

541.700(b). 

The “discretion” requirement is further explained as involving “the comparison and 

the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the 

various possibilities have been considered.” See § 541.202(a). Moreover, “[t]he exercise 

of discretion and independent judgment implies that the employee has the authority to make 

an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision. However, employees 

can exercise discretion and independent judgment even if their decisions or 

recommendations are reviewed at a higher level.” See § 541.202(c).

The regulations contemplate specific examples of the types of employees who are

exempt, including such employees in the financial services industry:

Employees in the financial services industry generally meet the duties 

requirements for the administrative exemption if their duties include work 

such as collecting and analyzing information regarding the customer’s 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 5 of 11 PageID: 4207
6

income, assets, investments or debts; determining which financial 

products best meet the customer’s needs and financial circumstances; 

advising the customer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of 

different financial products; and marketing, servicing or promoting the 

employer’s financial products. However, an employee whose primary 

duty is selling financial products does not qualify for the administrative 

exemption.

Sec. 541.203(b).

i. The Department of Labor Opinion Letter

In November 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published an opinion 

letter (the “Letter”) that specifically addressed whether FAs meet the Exemption. Dep’t of 

Labor, Wage & Hour Div., Op. Ltr. Fair Labor Standards Act (“Op. Ltr.”), No. FLSA2006-

43, 2006 WL 3832994 (Nov. 27, 2006). 2 In this definitive piece of guidance, the DOL 

considered the applicability of the Exemption to a job description identical to what 

Plaintiffs described in their deposition testimonies. Compare id. at *1–2 (describing FAs’ 

primary duty as collecting clients’ financial information, analyzing it, comparing and 

evaluating possible investment options and identifying investment strategies to meet 

clients’ needs), with Otten Dep. 54:14–58:22 (describing Plaintiff’s adherence to the KYC 

Rule), and Pontilena Dep. 35:10–40:1 (same), and Kuhn Dep. 69:5–73:15 (same), and

Rosenblatt Dep. 81:1–82:18 (same). The DOL concluded:

[FAs] have a primary duty other than sales, because their work includes 

collecting and analyzing a clients’ financial information, advising the 

client about the risks and the advantages and disadvantages of various 

investment opportunities in light of the client’s individual financial 

circumstances, and recommending to the client only those securities that 

are suitable for the client’s particular financial status, objectives, risk 

tolerance, tax exposure, and other investment needs. Based upon the 

foregoing, we conclude that these [FAs] satisfy the duties requirement 

under 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(b).

Op. Ltr., 2006 WL 3832994 at *5.

The DOL further concluded that FAs satisfied the discretion requirement because 

their duties “include evaluating the client’s individual financial circumstances and 

investment needs and assessing and comparing the alternatives before making 

recommendations for investment options to the client . . . .” Id. at *6. Finally, the DOL

concluded that the FAs’ “salary/draw” compensation plan satisfied the salary requirement 

 

2 The Letter refers to the employees in question as “registered representatives,” which includes varying job titles “such 

as account executives, broker-representatives, financial executives, financial consultants, financial advisors, 

investment professionals, and stockbrokers.” Id. at *1 (emphasis added). For convenience, the Court will refer to 

“registered representatives” as “FAs” in quoted text. 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 6 of 11 PageID: 4208
7

because “the FA at all times is guaranteed and receives not less than a predetermined 

amount that equals or exceeds the $455 minimum . . . .” See id. at *6–7.

ii. Judicial Applications of the Exemption

Two courts have considered the precise issue before this Court at summary 

judgment: whether the Exemption applies to FAs. In Hein v. PNC Fin. Servs. Group, Inc., 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the Exemption applied. 511 F. Supp. 2d 563, 

575 (E.D. Pa. 2007). The parties conceded that Plaintiff satisfied the salary and discretion 

requirements. Thus, the only question before the court was whether Plaintiff’s primary 

duty constituted sales or exempt activities. Id. at 571. Plaintiff spent approximately 50 

percent of his time on the phone, conducting what Plaintiffs in this case have described as 

“cold calling.” See id. at 568–69, 573. Plaintiff also performed tasks similar to those 

described by Plaintiffs in this case, including: research of particular financial instruments; 

learning clients’ assets, holdings and investment aims; recommending appropriate 

investments based on an individual client’s needs; implementing actual transactions; and 

generating new sales leads. See id. at 569. 

The court held that plaintiff satisfied the primary duty requirement. First, plaintiff’s 

most important task was to “make appropriate recommendations to clients, even if he did 

not realize a sale as a result.” See id. at 572. Second, while plaintiff spent some time 

processing actual transactions—i.e., non-exempt sales activity—the majority of his time 

was spent performing exempt duties, such as collecting and analyzing client information 

and recommending appropriate investments. See id. at 573–74. Importantly, “cold calling” 

was exempt activity, at least in part, because such calls were used to “elicit information 

about assets and investment goals,” which was considered administrative work under DOL 

regulations. See id. at 573. Third, plaintiff exercised independence and discretion because 

his supervisor did not directly review his recommendations to clients, attend client 

meetings, and listen to client phone conversations, among other reasons.3 See id. at 574. 

More recently, in Tsyn v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, the Northern District of 

California similarly held that the Exemption applied. See No. 14-cv-2552, 2016 WL 

612926, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016). As in Hein, plaintiffs’ activities in Tsyn mirrored 

those presented by Plaintiffs here.4 See id. at *6. The court deferred to the DOL’s Letter 

in finding that the pattern of plaintiffs’ work met the DOL’s description of the primary duty 

requirement: “one where analysis, judgment, and advice predominate, and where attendant 

sales are relatively ‘incidental.’” See id. at *9. Furthermore, the court rejected plaintiffs’ 

argument that their primary duty constituted sales activity because their work was 

“ultimately motivated by the desire to sell financial products.” The court determined that 

 

3 The court also considered a fourth factor, which was a comparison of plaintiff’s salary to that of a non-exempt 

employee. See id. at 574–75.

4

“They collected and analyzed clients’ financial information, assessed their particular needs, developed investment 

plans, advised clients about the benefits and drawbacks of different investments, and made suitable investment 

recommendations. They also marketed and promoted their services.” Id.

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 7 of 11 PageID: 4209
8

this “reductive characterization is at all levels inconsistent with longstanding regulation” 

and “with express regulatory guidance.” See id. at *11 (emphasis original). 

 Plaintiffs in this case rely on Martin v. Cooper Elec. Supply Co., 940 F.2d 896 (3d 

Cir. 1991), and DOL Administrative Interpretation (“Interpretation”) No. 2010-1, in 

support of their argument that their primary duty was non-exempt sales activity. See Pls.’ 

Opp’n at 7–14. Plaintiffs ignore, however, that the Court has already rejected their reliance 

on these authorities at the class and collective action certification phase. See ECF No. 146 

at 11, n.3. Notably, Cooper addressed individuals who sold electrical products and the 

DOL Interpretation addressed mortgage loan officers. Neither authority is on point here. 

See id. Instead, the Court will rely on the regulatory authority and case law that expressly 

address FAs. The Court finds that the DOL’s regulations provide the agency’s body of 

experience and informed judgment about the FLSA, which commands considerable 

deference. See Hein, 511 F. Supp. 2d at 570 (citation omitted). With this understanding, 

the Court will now apply the undisputed facts to the Exemption’s three requirements. 

iii. Salary Requirement

Plaintiffs do not deny that they received a minimum of $1,972.00 per month in 

compensation at all relevant times. See Pls.’ Counterstatement at ¶¶ 16–17. Rather, they 

argue that they were paid a “draw” on their commissions, which violated the Exemption’s 

salary requirement. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 4–6. In their own words, Plaintiffs acknowledged 

that they received commission payments only after their gross revenues exceeded their 

monthly “draws.” See Otten Dep. 187:2–5; Pontilena Dep. 91:8–93:3; Kuhn Dep. 179:14–

184:3; Rosenblatt Dep. 118:5–120:8. Plaintiffstestified that if they did not produce enough 

gross revenues to cover their monthly “draws,” then their commissions would be reduced 

in subsequent months to cover the deficiency. See Otten Dep. 186:11–22; Pontilena Dep. 

90:5–9; Kuhn Dep. 182:4–17; Rosenblatt 117:3–9. Regardless of these commission 

reductions, however, Plaintiffs still received their “draws” every month. See Otten Dep. 

188:25–189:4; Pontilena Dep. 92:3–22; Rosenblatt Dep. 119:20–120:2 (“There was always 

an automatic deposit every two weeks.”).

The DOL’s Letter makes clear that this compensation model meets the salary 

requirement. See Op. Ltr., 2006 WL 3832994, at *3, 6–7 (describing a “reconciliation 

process” between the salary/draw and fee/commission components of compensation and 

concluding that it meets the salary requirement). Plaintiffs’ characterization of their 

compensation as a “draw” is irrelevant. Plaintiffs received a predetermined amount of at 

least $1,972.00 per month at all relevant times, which clearly satisfies the requirement. See 

Palmerini Decl. at ¶¶ 4, 8, Ex. A. It is, therefore, undisputed that Plaintiffs’ compensation 

satisfied the salary requirement.

iv. Primary Duty

Plaintiffs admit that they performed all of the tasks described in the regulations and 

the DOL’s Letter as exempt duties under the primary duty requirement. See Part I, supra, 

at 2–3 (Fact No. 3). Plaintiffs argue, however, that their performance of these tasks was 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 8 of 11 PageID: 4210
9

“incidental to sales” and that their primary duty as FAs was, therefore, the non-exempt sale 

of financial products. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 23–24. 

Plaintiffs’ argument mirrors that of the plaintiffs in Tsyn, which that court rejected 

as a “reductive characterization” that defies the regulations. See 2016 WL 612926, at *11. 

Plaintiffs attempt to convince this Court that Tsyn is inapplicable here because: (1) the facts 

in Tsyn were undisputed whereas Plaintiffs dispute the facts in the instant case; (2) 

Plaintiffs contend that their performance of exempt tasks was “part and parcel” of selling 

financial products whereas plaintiffs in Tsyn merely argued that their performance was 

“secondary” to selling; and (3) the Tsyn court erroneously rejected the DOL’s 

Interpretation because it concerned mortgage loan officers even though it was intended to 

apply broadly to all employees subject to the Exemption. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 30–31.

The Court is not persuaded. First, the facts here, as in Tsyn, are undisputed. As 

noted, Plaintiffs’ own deposition testimonies unequivocally establish that they performed 

tasks identical to those described in the DOL’s Letter and in the Tsyn opinion. Second, 

Plaintiffs’ characterization that their performance of these tasks was “part and parcel” to 

selling financial products is irrelevant. The only relevant inquiry is whether their 

performance “directly related to the management or general business operations of the 

employer or the employer’s customers.” See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(2). Third, the Court 

has already concluded that the Interpretation upon which Plaintiffs rely is uninformative of 

whether Plaintiffs’ primary duty satisfies the Exemption. See ECF No. 146 at 11. 

Furthermore, even assuming that the DOL intended for it to apply broadly, that does not 

mean that the Interpretation was intended to apply to the financial services industry, where 

the DOL had already published an opinion expressly applying the Exemption to Plaintiffs’ 

exact job description.

The Court is more persuaded by the DOL’s Letter and the Tsyn and Hein opinions

in applying the instant facts to the Exemption. In so doing, the Court concludes that 

Plaintiffs’ primary duty clearly satisfied the Exemption. While the time spent performing 

the exempt tasks may have varied among the Plaintiffs, they all admit that they spent no 

more than one hour per day performing the non-exempt task of processing transactions for 

their clients’ portfolios. See Otten Dep. 159:13–160:14; Pontilena Dep. 75:6–76:14; Kuhn 

Dep. 86:16–87:11; Rosenblatt Dep. 113:5–9; see also Hein, 511 F. Supp. 2d at 573–74

(describing the processing of transactions as non-exempt). It is, therefore, undisputed that 

Plaintiffs spent the vast majority of their time performing exempt tasks, including 

collecting and analyzing a client’s financial information, advising the client about 

investment opportunities, and recommending financial products that are suitable to the 

client’s particular financial status. See Op. Ltr., 2016 WL 3832994, at *5. Furthermore, 

whatever amount of time Plaintiffs spent “cold” and “warm” calling, the Court finds that 

activity to constitute exempt “business development activities.” See id.; Hein, 511 F. Supp. 

2d at 573. Plaintiffs’ primary duty satisfied the Exemption.

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 9 of 11 PageID: 4211
10

v. Discretion and Independent Judgment

The undisputed facts also clearly establish that Plaintiffs exercised discretion and 

independent judgment. Plaintiffs’ attempts to create factual disputes to the contrary are 

unavailing. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 36–39. Plaintiffs testified that they had varying degrees of 

interaction with their supervisors, ranging from daily to sporadic interaction. See Part I, 

supra, at 3 (Fact No. 9). Regardless of the frequency, however, Plaintiffs admitted that 

they did not need preapproval from their supervisors to execute transactions on behalf of 

their clients, except in limited circumstances and on rare occasions. See id. (Fact No. 10). 

In making investment recommendations, Plaintiffs used their discretion and judgment in 

choosing from a “huge array” of MSSB financial products. See id. (Fact No. 5, Kuhn Dep. 

75:6–7). Finally, Plaintiffs’ supervisors did not directly oversee Plaintiffs’ client 

communications or recommendations. Otten Dep. 153:6–21, Pontilena Dep. 111:25–

112:3; Kuhn Dep. 75:19–21; Rosenblatt Dep. 150:11–18. 

The DOL characterized the discretion requirement as involving “comparing and 

evaluating possible courses of conduct and acting or making a decision after the various 

possibilities have been considered.” Op. Ltr., 2016 WL 3832994, at *6. “The decisions 

made as a result of discretion and independent judgment may consist of recommendations 

for action rather than the actual taking of action.” Id. This is precisely what Plaintiffs did. 

It is an indisputable fact that Plaintiffs “evaluat[ed] the client’s individual financial 

circumstances and investment needs and assess[ed] and compar[ed] the alternatives before 

making recommendations for investment options to the client,” which satisfied the 

requirement. Id.

In sum, MSSB has met its burden in showing that there is no factual dispute that 

Plaintiffs satisfied the Exemption, and MSSB was not required to pay them overtime 

wages. Accordingly, MSSB’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Count I 

is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

vi. State Law Exemptions Are Not Materially Different from the FLSA

Plaintiffs previously conceded that the exemption rules under the state statutes at 

issue do not materially differ from the FLSA. See Pls.’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for 

Class Certification 13 n.4, ECF No. 124-1 (“The FLSA’s administrative exemption does 

not materially differ from those of the state wage and hour laws of New York, New Jersey 

and Connecticut.”). Plaintiffs now try to distinguish the New Jersey law from the FLSA 

by arguing that the New Jersey law did not adopt the FLSA’s version of the Exemption 

until September 6, 2011. Since Plaintiffs Otten and Pontilena filed their complaints before 

this date, they contend that the previous, more narrow version of the Exemption should 

apply. See Pls.’ Opp’n at 41–43.

As MSSB correctly points out, however, the previous New Jersey law was modeled 

after federal regulations drafted prior to 2004. See Defs.’ Reply at 21. The DOL 

acknowledged in the Letter that the criteria of the Exemption were “substantially the same” 

in the 2004 revised regulations as they were under the prior rule. See Op. Ltr., 2016 WL 

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 10 of 11 PageID: 4212
11

3832994, at *7. Thus, the outcome under either version of the Exemption “would be 

essentially identical.” See id. Furthermore, in its commentary addressing the 2011 revision 

to the New Jersey exemption, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development clarified that any discrepancy between the New Jersey law and the FLSA

after 2004 was an “oversight.” See 43 N.J.R. 2352(a). The Court, therefore, rejects 

Plaintiffs’ argument and finds that there is no material difference between the New Jersey

and FLSA exemptions.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs were exempt employees under New York, New 

Jersey and Connecticut law for the same reasons as they were under the FLSA. 

Accordingly, MSSB’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and all remaining 

counts are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, MSSB’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED

and all remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs’ motion to 

strike is DENIED as moot. An appropriate order follows.

 

/s/ William J. Martini 

 WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.

Date: February 28, 2017

 

5 The Court does not need to reach MSSB’s remaining arguments because it finds that Plaintiffs are exempt under 

the FLSA and state law.

Case 2:11-cv-03121-WJM-SCM Document 167 Filed 02/28/17 Page 11 of 11 PageID: 4213