Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2010cv01363/533749/53
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 19:36:24
Document Index: 70948727

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 213', '§ 541', '§ 541', '§ 541', '§ 541', '§ 541', '§541', '§ 541', '§\n541', '§ 541', '§ 541']

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 41 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; the Court finds that Defendants have established that the position of Staffing Coordinator is administratively exempt; therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime compensation for the time they spent in excess of 40 hours per week performing this position for Defendants; the Court further finds that Defendants have not established that the position of Compliance Coordinator is administrat ively exempt; therefore, Plaintiff Jessica Carpenter is entitled to overtime compensation for her time spent in excess of 40 hours per week performing this position for Defendant Concentric; a Status Conference shall be held in Courtroom 605, 401 W for Quintiliani et al v. Concentric Healthcare Solutions, LLC et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings Log In
Quintiliani et al v. Concentric Healthcare Solutions, LLC et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' 41 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; the Court finds that Defendants have established that the position of Staffing Coordinator is administratively exempt; therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime compensation for the time they spent in excess of 40 hours per week performing this position for Defendants; the Court further finds that Defendants have not established that the position of Compliance Coordinator is administrat ively exempt; therefore, Plaintiff Jessica Carpenter is entitled to overtime compensation for her time spent in excess of 40 hours per week performing this position for Defendant Concentric; a Status Conference shall be held in Courtroom 605, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, on Monday, April 22, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 3/27/13. (REW)
Jennifer Quintiliani, et al.,
Concentric Healthcare Solutions, LLC., et)
No. CV-10-1363-PHX-SMM
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc.
41.) Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), Plaintiffs argue that they were entitled
to overtime compensation in their positions with Defendants because they were not exempt
under either the executive or administrative exemption. (Id.) As a matter of law, Plaintiffs
request that the Court grant partial summary judgment finding their positions not exempt,
and determining at trial the extent of their monetary damages.
In their response, Defendants have not argued that Plaintiffs’ positions were subject
to an executive exemption (Doc. 49), so that contention is waived. See F.D.I.C. v. Garner,
126 F.3d 1138, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that a litigant who presents no case law or
argument in support of a claim is deemed to have waived that argument). Defendants do
argue that Plaintiffs performed exempt administrative duties. (Id.) Plaintiffs have replied.
(Doc. 52.) After reviewing the briefs, and having determined that oral argument is
unnecessary, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs’ motion for partial
summary judgment. (Doc. 41.)
Defendant Concentric Healthcare Solutions, LLC (“Concentric”) is a healthcare
staffing and placement firm specializing in providing temporary or fill-in nursing staff and
other healthcare professionals to client hospitals and clinics that have contracted for the
service with Concentric. (Doc. 42-2 at 3; Doc. 50 at 1.) Defendant Alarys Home Health,
Inc. (“Alarys”) is a Home Health Agency that specializes in providing nurses, nurse
assistants, home health aides and therapists to the elderly and disabled in the client’s
residence following a referral from a doctor or insurance company. (Id.)
Concentric maintains a database of qualified nursing staff and other healthcare
professionals that may be referred to client hospitals and clinics that have contracted with
Concentric. (Doc. 42 at 2-5.) In order to be eligible for referral to certain staffing positions,
nursing and other healthcare professionals must obtain and maintain certain certifications.
(Id.) Correspondingly, Concentric also certifies to regulatory agencies such as the Joint
Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (“JCAHO”)1 and the Arizona
Hospital and Healthcare Association (“AzHHA”)2 that it is in compliance with their
standards and requirements. (Doc. 51-2 at 7-9.)
When a hospital/clinic client identifies that it has a need for a specific type of
healthcare professional for a specific shift, the client will coordinate its staffing request
through Concentric’s Staffing Coordinator. (Doc. 42-2 at 4, 13.) On occasion, the client
JCAHO is an independent, not-for-profit organization that accredits and certifies
health care organizations throughout the United States. JCAHO certification acknowledges
compliance with the Joint Commission’s national set of consensus-based quality standards
and demonstrates a commitment to excellence in providing health care staffing. (Doc. 42-2
AzHHA is an Arizona based agency that coordinates the placement of temporary
healthcare personnel. AzHHA maintains a registry program of qualified agencies and
qualified participating institutions from which temporary placements can be coordinated.
(Doc. 42-2 at 30-50.)
will request a specific individual who had previously staffed with the client. (Id. at 13.) The
Staffing Coordinator answers and places over a hundred calls each shift related to staffing
requests and facilitating placement. (Id. at 14.) After a staffing request is made, the Staffing
Coordinator then searches a detailed company database for individuals qualified and
available to fill the needed position and shift. (Id. at 13.) Staffing Coordinators may also
periodically contact client hospitals/clinics to see if they know of any future staffing needs
At Concentric, the Compliance Coordinator monitors that the nurses, home health
aides and medical staff included in the company database possess and are current with all
required licenses, certificates and background checks based on a detailed checklist outlining
the specific requirements for each position. (Id. at 12.)
Plaintiff Jennifer Quintiliani (“Quintiliani”) was employed by Concentric as a Staffing
Coordinator but also performed the same job responsibilities occasionally for Alarys. (Doc.
42-2 at 3; Doc. 50 at 3.) Her salary was $35,000 per year plus commissions. (Doc. 50 at 7.)
In 2008, Quintiliani’s total compensation including salary plus commissions was $58,771.26.
(Doc. 42-2 at 6.) For most of her employment, Quintiliani was supervised by Andrew
Jacobs, the Director of Medical Staffing. (Doc. 42-2 at 3.)
Plaintiff Jessica Carpenter (“Carpenter”) was employed by Concentric as a
Compliance Coordinator and as a Staffing Coordinator. (Doc. 42-2 at 3; Doc. 50 at 6.) Her
salary as a Compliance Coordinator was $34,000 per year plus commissions. (Doc. 51-5 at
17.) Carpenter was also supervised by Andrew Jacobs, the Director of Medical Staffing.
(Doc. 42-2 at 11.)
The job description for Staffing Coordinator is as follows:
a) answer in-bound phone calls, minimum of 80 outbound calls per day; b)
communicate daily with all active nursing employees, to update schedules and
answer questions; c) communicate daily with Client facilities to answer
questions and confirm shifts; d) generate leads for new client businesses;
assess client needs and liaise with recruiters to fulfill; ensure timely payroll
and billing; e) maintain accessibility to weekend and night staff for questions;
f) provide on call coverage three to four times per month, or as needed - to
include weekends, nights and holidays; g) knowledge and application of
AzHHA and JCAHO standards; h) adhere to all Federal and State laws
regarding licensure requirements as well as relevant healthcare program
requirements to include the Company’s business policies and Code of
Conduct; i) and other duties as assigned.
(Doc. 50 at 7-8.) Specifically, the Staffing Coordinator’s primary duties involved:
a) placing nurses who would provide the best services to Concentric’s clients;
b) approving higher rates of pay for nurses where appropriate in order to
ensure the placement of the most capable nurses with Concentric’s clients; c)
working directly with Concentric’s clients to gather evaluative information
regarding the staffing services to ensure the “best fit” for staffing; d)
generating additional business and developing the client relationship on behalf
of Concentric; e) counseling nurses who did not provide good service to
Concentric’s clients; f) participate in terminating or designating a nurse as
DNR [Do Not Return] where appropriate service is not provided to
Concentric’s clients; g) forecasting client needs in order to market, sell and
development Concentric’s clients.
(Doc. 51-6 at 3-4; Doc. 51-2 at 19-23.)
The job description for Compliance Coordinator is as follows:
a) assists with the development oversight and monitoring of compliance
programs within the Company; b) administrates the Company’s General
Compliance Program; c) communicates and coordinates with other branches
of the Company to develop an awareness of the compliance program among
Company employees; d) adhere to all Federal and State laws regarding
licensure requirements as well as relevant healthcare program requirements to
include the Company’s business policies and Code of Conduct; e) audit newly
hired external employees files to ensure proper credentials and licensure
requirements and 100% compliant before placement in client facilities; f) audit
existing external employee files to ensure ongoing compliance as dictated by
client contracts, JCAHO, AzHHA, and other stricture as needed; g)
communication with external personnel regarding expiring/expired,
credentials, licenses or missing documentation; provide weekly compliance
reports as necessary to the Director of Medical Staffing; other duties as
(Doc. 51-1.)
A Compliance Coordinator monitors that the nurses, home health aides and medical
staff included in the company database possess and are current with all required licenses,
certificates and background checks based on a detailed checklist outlining the specific
requirements for each position. (Doc. 41 at 3.)
At this juncture, the Court will postpone further factual discussion until those facts
become relevant to the issues of law that must be addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion for partial
Upon motion at any time, a party defending against a claim may move for “partial
summary judgment,” that is, “summary judgment in the party's favor as to . . . any part
thereof.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(b). A court must grant summary judgment if the pleadings and
supporting documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, “show that
judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 317. The party opposing summary judgment “may
not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [the party’s] pleadings, but . . . must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); see
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 585-88 (1986); Brinson v. Linda
Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 1995). “[A] complete failure of proof
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other
facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
Whether the job activities of an employee precludes them from overtime benefits
under the FLSA is a question of law for the Court. Bothell v. Phase Metrics, 299 F.3d 1120,
1124 (9th Cir. 2002). The actual day-to-day job activities of the Plaintiffs are questions of
fact for the Court. Id. They will be reviewed in the light most favorable to Concentric, the
non-moving party, to determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact that would
preclude granting Plaintiffs summary judgment. Id.
Pursuant to the FLSA, employees must be paid time and a half for work over forty
requirement, however, including those persons “employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional capacity.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). Policy dictates that FLSA
exemptions be narrowly construed against the employer, and their application is limited to
those establishments plainly and unmistakably within the exemption’s terms and spirit. See
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 462 (1997). The employer bears the burden of proving that
an employee’s job is subject to an exemption. See Klem v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 208 F.3d
1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2000).
Certain employees are exempt from this
Defendants contend that Quintiliani and Carpenter worked for Concentric in the
position of Staffing Coordinator as exempt administrative employees. (Doc. 49.) Defendants
further contend that Carpenter’s position as Compliance Coordinator was an exempt
administrative position. (Id.)
The Court will evaluate whether the job responsibilities of Staffing Coordinator
qualifies as an exempt administrative position. A bona fide administrative employee is any
1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $455 per
2) Whose primary duty is the performance of office or non-manual work
employer or the employer’s customers; and
3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent
To qualify under the administrative exemption, an employee must meet both the
salary test and the duties test. It is undisputed that the both Quintiliani and Carpenter meet
the salary test. (Doc. 41 at 5, 10.) It remains for the Court to consider the duties test, which
pursuant to regulation, requires work directly related to management polices or general
business operations and the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect
to matters of significance. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200; In re Farmers Insurance Exchange,
Claims Representatives’ Overtime Pay Litigation, 481 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir. 2007).
The facts establish that Plaintiffs were involved in performing non-manual office
Coordinator’s job activities were directly related to management or general business
operations. Regarding that analysis, the regulations provide additional guidance, as follows:
The phrase “directly related to the management or general business
operations” refers to the type of work performed by the employee. To meet
this requirement, 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
That being said, it remains for Concentric to prove first that the Staffing
Concentric then has the additional burden of showing that the employee exercises
discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. The regulations
provide additional guidance on that job activity as well:
In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment involves the
comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or
making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. The
term ‘matters of significance’ refers to the level of importance or consequence
29 C.F.R. § 541.202(a). The regulations then give examples of the requisite discretion and
independent judgment necessary:
The phrase ‘discretion and independent judgment’ must be applied in the light
of all the facts involved in the particular employment situation in which the
question arises. Factors to consider when determining whether an employee
exercises discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of
significance include, but are not limited to: whether the employee has
authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or
operating practices; whether the employee carries out major assignments in
conducting the operations of the business; whether the employee performs
work that affects business operations to a substantial degree, even if the
employee’s assignments are related to operation of a particular segment of the
business; whether the employee has authority to commit the employer in
matters that have significant financial impact; whether the employee has
authority to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures without
prior approval; whether the employee has authority to negotiate and bind the
company on significant matters; whether the employee provides consultation
or expert advice to management; whether the employee is involved in
planning long or short-term business objectives; whether the employee
and whether the employee represents the company in handling complaints,
arbitrating disputes or resolving grievances.
29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b). Regulations by the Department of Labor further provide that to
exercise discretion and independent judgment, an “administrative” employee must meet at
least two or three of these factors. See Dep’t of Labor Wage & Hour Div., Rules and
Regulations, 69 Fed. Reg. 22122, 22143 (Apr. 23, 2004).
Courts that have considered positions similar to the Staffing Coordinator at issue here
have found that the duties of the position was administratively exempt. See, e.g., Goff v.
Bayada Nurses, Inc., 424 F. Supp.2d 816, 824 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that a supervisor for
a nursing agency who placed nurses with patients and managed the nurses’ relationship with
customers fit within the administrative exemption); Hudkins v. Maxim Healthcare Servs.,
39 F. Supp.2d 1349, 1349-50 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (holding that a recruiter of nurses for
defendant’s client hospitals fit within the administrative exemption).
The Court will more specifically review the two main aspects of the duties test in
order to determine whether the Staffing Coordinator position at issue is administratively
Defendants argue that the Staffing Coordinator’s duties and responsibilities are
directly related to their business operations because it is the Staffing Coordinator’s
responsibility to oversee the placement of medical staff with their clients. (Doc. 49 at 9-10.)
Defendants further support their direct relation argument contending that it is the Staffing
Coordinator who is responsible for knowing the staff available for the need and matching
the client’s need with the skill set of the professionals available. (Id.)
Plaintiffs contend that a Staffing Coordinator is not administratively exempt because
it is a customer service or production position with respect to Concentric’s marketplace
offering, the product that Defendants offer to client medical facilities–temporary medical
staff. Plaintiffs allege that their duties were unrelated to the actual management or the
general business operation of the company.
Although not specifically controlling, in a 2005 opinion letter, the Department of
Labor Wage and Hour Division concluded that a staffing manager at a temporary staffing
agency “performed work in the functional areas of personnel management, human resources
and labor relations” by “recruiting, hiring and managing the temporary labor pool of [the
agency’s] clients” and, therefore, met the requirement of performing “work directly related
to the management or general business operations of the employer’s clients.” Dep’t of Labor
Wage & Hour Div. Op. Ltr. at 3, 2005 WL 3308616 (Oct. 25, 2005) (emphasis added).
At issue is whether the conclusion drawn by the Department of Labor with respect
to the Staffing Manager position is also the conclusion that must be drawn with respect to
the duties performed by a Staffing Coordinator. The Court finds that because the same
principles apply with respect to the duties of Staffing Coordinator, the same conclusion
should be reached. The Staffing Coordinator provides an administrative human resource
service to Concentric’s clients by fielding and making calls to Concentric’s clients regarding
staffing needs and then matching particular nurses/medical professionals that best fit the
need. The Staffing Coordinator also responds to discipline problems associated with staff
and has the authority to designate staff as DNR (“Do Not Return”).
Coordinator does not “produce” anything. It is the services of the temporary medical
professionals that is the “product” of Concentric’s business.
The other courts considering this issue agree. In Goff, the court held that a supervisor
who matched nurses to patients and was involved in case managing to ensure that the
temporary employee retains a positive relationship with the client was performing a function
directly related to the business. See 424 F. Supp.2d at 824. In Hudkins, 39 F. Supp.2d at
1350, even though the position at issue was “recruiter,” the court considered the similar
primary duties of the Staffing Coordinator that is at issue here and held that these duties were
“directly related to the Defendant’s general business operation in that it was a recruiter’s
responsibility to oversee the placement of nurses with the Defendant’s clients.” Id.
Plaintiffs contend that Hudkins is distinguishable because the employee in that case
had the additional responsibility of recruiting nurses whereas in this case the Staffing
Coordinator only consults a database of existing nurses available for staffing. (Doc. 52 at
9.) Although granted that there was an additional responsibility in Hudkins, it is a distinction
without a difference. In each case, the employee is providing an administrative human
resource service to the clients; the employee is not producing anything. It is the services of
the temporary professionals that is the “product” of Concentric’s business. The Court finds
that Quintiliani’s and Carpenter’s primary duty as a Staffing Coordinator was directly related
to the business operation of Concentric’s clients, and meets the second element of the
administrative exemption test.
Next, Defendants argue that the Staffing Coordinator exercises the requisite discretion
and independent judgment on matters of significance to satisfy this aspect of the duties test.
(Doc. 49 at 9-10.) Defendants contend that the Staffing Coordinator’s primary duties
involves discretion and judgment in order to “staff” appropriate professionals with client
facilities and place nurses who would provide the best services to Concentric’s clients. (Id.)
Specifically, it is the responsibility of the Staffing Coordinator to work directly with
Concentric’s clients to gather information regarding staffing services to ensure the “best fit”
for the client. (Id.) Defendants further state that the Staffing Coordinator has authority to
approve higher rates of pay where appropriate to ensure the placement of the most capable
nurses with Concentric’s clients. (Id.) Where necessary, they counsel nurses who did not
provide good service to the clients. (Jacobs’ Deposition, Doc. 51-2 at 19.) The Staffing
Coordinator has the authority to designate a nurse as DNR where appropriate. (Id.; Jacobs’
Deposition, Doc. 51-2 at 19.)
Plaintiffs disagree. Plaintiffs’ main argument is that the position of Staffing
Coordinator merely involves the use of skill in applying well-established techniques,
procedures or specific standards described in manuals or other sources. (Doc. 52 at 6-7,
citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(e).)
responsibilities, they merely followed the standards and procedures already established. (Id.
at 6-7.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Staffing Coordinator has the authority to approve
higher rates of pay for certain nurses. (Id. at 7.)
Plaintiffs contend that in carrying out their job
The DOL regulations for exercising judgment and discretion, 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(b),
establish the factors under consideration and further indicate that in order to exercise
discretion and independent judgment, an “administrative” employee must meet at least two
or three of these factors. See Dep’t of Labor Wage & Hour Div., Rules and Regulations, 69
Fed. Reg. at 22143. In evaluation of these factors, the Court finds that the duties of the
position of Staffing Coordinator did meet the requisite standards for judgment and discretion.
Specifically, the Staffing Coordinator primary duties implemented important management
policies and operating practices regarding the management of the medical professional’s
relationship with the clients. The same can be said regarding the Staffing Coordinator
carrying out major assignments in conducting the operations of Concentric’s business. The
primary duty of the Staffing Coordinator was management of the medical professional’s
relationship with their clients and this included counseling and discipline of staff who did
not comply with the client’s policies or procedures. Next, even though the Staffing
Coordinator’s assignments are related to the operation of a particular segment of the business
(overall managing staff relationships with the clients), this responsibility affects business
operations to a substantial degree. Plaintiff’s primary duty as a Staffing Coordinator was to
promote, service and administer the general business operation of placement of medical
professionals in a manner that would ensure that the medical professionals placed with the
clients were capable of producing good medical services and in furtherance of this objective,
the Plaintiffs exercised discretion and independent judgment. See Hudkins, 39 F. Supp.2d
The Court finds that Quintiliani and Carpenter exercised discretion and independent
judgment on matters of significance in their primary duties as a Staffing Coordinator, and
thus met the third element of the administrative exemption test.
Last, Plaintiffs argue that since $200 was deducted from one of Quintiliani’s
commission checks, this renders her “non-exempt.” (Doc. 41 at 16.) The Court disagrees.
The Department of Labor has issued regulations stating that only an “employer who makes
improper deductions from salary may lose the exemption.” See 29 C.F.R. § §541.603(a); see
also Childers v. City of Eugene, 120 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that employees were
not rendered non-exempt by a one-time imposition of a disciplinary sanction).
2. Compliance Coordinator
The Court finally considers whether the job responsibilities of a Compliance
Coordinator qualifies as an exempt administrative position. The Court has already set forth
that to qualify under the administrative exemption, an employee must meet both the salary
and duties test. It is undisputed that Carpenter met the salary test. Under the duties test, the
job responsibilities must be directly related to the management or general business
operations and the employee must exercise discretion and independent judgment on matters
of significance. See 29 C.F.R. § 541.200.
In support of the administrative exemption, Defendants contend that Carpenter was
responsible for obtaining all information for medical staffing recruits and auditing all of the
staff employee files to ensure they had the required training and credentials. (Doc. 51-6 at
5.) Defendants further state that Carpenter was also responsible for ensuring that Concentric
and all of its employees were compliant with all client, agency and organization agreements
and contracts, including its accreditation with JCAHO. (Id.) Carpenter also oversaw and
maintained the qualification and database for all external employees and professionals, in
addition to performing audits of the employee files for new hires and existing employees.
In contrast, Carpenter compares her Compliance Coordinator duties to the duties
performed by personnel clerks and inspectors. (Id.) Citing and quoting 29 C.F.R. §
541.203(e), Carpenter argues that “personnel clerks who ‘screen’ applicants to obtain data
regarding their minimum qualifications and fitness for employment generally do not meet
the duties requirements for the administrative exemption.” Regarding inspectors, Carpenter
cites and quotes 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(g) to argue that “[o]rdinary inspection work generally
does not meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption. Inspectors normally
perform specialized work along standardized lines involving well-established techniques
and procedures which may have been catalogued and described in manuals or other sources.”
Defendants respond contending that Carpenter’s duties were directly related to
Concentric’s business operations because if she did not perform her duties then Concentric
could not conduct its business of staffing medical professionals with its clients. (Doc. 49 at
The Department of Labor’s interpretive regulations, such as 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(e)
and (g), are attempts to clarify the meaning of the administrative exemption. Bothell, 299
F.3d at 1126. In these regulations, the DOL is attempting to clarify the application of the
discretion and independent judgment test for the administrative exemption. Deference is
owed to DOL’s regulations interpreting the FLSA. Webster v. Public Sch. Employees of
Wash., Inc., 247 F.3d 910, 912-13 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court agrees with Carpenter that the
interpretive regulations at issue clarify that her Compliance Coordinator duties did not satisfy
the discretion and independent judgment test for the administrative exemption. The
responsibilities of the Compliance Coordinator were akin to a personnel clerk who screens
applicants to obtain data regarding their minimum qualifications and fitness for employment.
Thus, for the Compliance Coordinator position, Defendants have not established as
a matter of law that the duties of this position are entitled to an administrative exemption.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING, IN PART, AND DENYING, IN
PART, Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 41.) The Court finds that
Defendants have established that the position of Staffing Coordinator is administratively
exempt. Therefore, Plaintiffs are not entitled to overtime compensation for the time they
spent in excess of 40 hours per week performing this position for Defendants. The Court
further finds that Defendants have not established that the position of Compliance
Coordinator is administratively exempt. Therefore Plaintiff Jessica Carpenter is entitled to
overtime compensation for her time spent in excess of 40 hours per week performing this
position for Defendant Concentric.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Status Conference shall be held in Courtroom
Arizona 85003, on Monday, April 22, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.