Opinion ID: 686722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Professional Exemptions

Text: 54 Whether The Monitor 's employees are within the scope of the FLSA professional exemption is a mixed question of fact and law. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 691. In reviewing this issue, we elect to follow the Fifth Circuit's approach, in which the appellate court separates out the questions of fact from the ultimate legal conclusion and applies a clearly erroneous standard to the former while exercising plenary review over the latter. Dalheim, 918 F.2d at 1226. 55 As the Fifth Circuit noted, there are three distinct types of findings involved in determining whether an employee is exempt. Id. First, the district court makes findings of historical fact, regarding, for example, the day-to-day duties of the employees. Id. These are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). Id.; see also Icicle Seafoods v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709, 714, 106 S.Ct. 1527, 1530, 89 L.Ed.2d 739 (1986); Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221, 227 (1st Cir.1982). Second, to apply the Secretary's regulations, the district court must draw conclusions from the historical facts. Dalheim, 918 F.2d at 1226. For example, whether an employee's work requires invention, imagination, or talent and whether such work constitutes an employee's primary duty are conclusions drawn from historical facts. Id. Such inferences are also subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. Lastly, the district court makes the ultimate legal conclusion of whether an employee is exempt. Although this is based on both historical facts and factual inferences, it is a conclusion of law, over which we exercise plenary review. Id.; see also Icicle Seafoods, 475 U.S. at 714, 106 S.Ct. at 1530; Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 691. 56 Although the determination of whether an employee is exempt is clearly tied to the district court's factfinding, we are acutely aware of our duty to canvas the record thoroughly. Further, we review the district court's decision to ensure that its factfinding was guided by the proper legal standards. [T]o the extent that findings of fact can be shown to have been predicated upon, or induced by, errors of law, they will be accorded diminished respect on appeal. Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 972 F.2d 453, 457 (1st Cir.1992).
57 As we discussed above, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3 outlines both a short and long test for determining whether an employee qualifies as an artistic professional. The long test is applied to employees who earn weekly salaries of at least $170 but less than $250. The short test is used for employees whose weekly salary is not less than $250. 58 Although the long test has many requirements, 9 the most significant for our analysis are that (1) the employee's primary duty consist of [w]ork that is original and creative in character in a recognized field of artistic endeavor and (2) the result of which depends primarily on the invention, imagination, or talent of the employee.... 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3(a)(2); see Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 698. 59 The short test for determining whether an employee is exempt as an artistic professional is more simple. It requires only that the employee's primary duty consist of work requiring invention, imagination, or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor.... 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3(e); see Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 698. The short test does not include the requirements of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3(b), (c) and (d) and does not require that the work be original and creative in character. As the Third Circuit noted, [w]hile the tests are not all that different, it seems clear that any employee who is not a professional under the short test will not be one under the long test. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 698. 60
61 The Monitor maintains that the district court erroneously applied the long test for artistic professionals to three reporters--David Olinger, Charles Stein, and Paul Carrier--whose weekly salary qualified them for analysis under the short test. The Monitor contends that the district court incorrectly required that the newspaper writing of these employees be  'predominantly original and creative in character'  when the correct standard merely required that the employee's primary duty consist of work requiring invention, imagination, or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor. Reich v. Newspapers of New England, Inc., 834 F.Supp. 530, 537 (D.N.H.1993). The Monitor claims that this was reversible error because the district court erroneously required these employees to meet a much more difficult standard. 62 The district court's opinion suggests that it did not specifically apply the short test to those employees of The Monitor with weekly salaries above $250. However, as we discuss below, our review of the record against the backdrop of the Secretary's interpretations leads us to conclude that these three employees do not qualify as exempt artistic professionals, even under the short test. Therefore, even if the district court erroneously applied the original and creative in character requirement of the long test, this error was harmless. 63 The relevant portion of the short test requires us to determine (1) the employee's primary duty, and (2) whether the performance of that duty requires invention, imagination, or talent. Because the Secretary stipulated that writing was the primary duty of these employees, the only issue remaining is whether their writing required invention, imagination, or talent. 64 With regard to the invention, imagination, or talent requirement, the Secretary's interpretation says:In the case of newspaper employees, the distinction here is similar to the distinction observed ... in connection with the requirement that the work be original and creative in character. Obviously the majority of reporters do work which depends primarily on intelligence, diligence, and accuracy. It is the minority whose work depends primarily on invention, imagination, or talent. 65 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.303. 10 The district court found, and we agree, that The Monitor employees did not fulfill this requirement. 66 The record demonstrates that the day-to-day duties of these three reporters consisted primarily of general assignment work. Among other things, their stories covered public utility commission hearings; criminal and police activity; city and state legislative proceedings; business events, including compiling a list of people who had been promoted; and local art events. Rarely were they asked to editorialize about or interpret the events they covered. Rather, the focus of their writing was, as David Olinger phrased it, to tell someone who wanted to know what happened ... in a quick and informative and understandable way. Thus, we believe that these reporters were like the majority of reporters in that their work depends primarily on intelligence, diligence, and accuracy. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.303. They were not performing duties which would place them in that minority of reporters whose work depends primarily on 'invention, imaging [sic], or talent.'  Id. Although some of the work product of these employees demonstrated creativity, invention, imagination, and talent, their writing did not exhibit these qualities on a day-to-day basis. 11 67 Of course, our decision should not be read to mean that all journalism work is nonexempt. The field of newspaper writing is certainly a medium capable of sustaining creativity. We want to reiterate that whether an employee is an exempt professional is independent of the title the employer ascribes to the position. As the interpretations point out, [t]he field of journalism ... employs many exempt as well as many nonexempt employees under the same or similar job titles. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 303(f). The determination of whether the exemption applies to a given employee depends on the specific duties and characteristics required by the position rather than its actual title. However, if we were to find that [these] reporters are in the minority of reporters whose work requires invention, imagination, or talent, it is hard to see what reporters would be left in the majority. Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 700; cf. Sherwood v. The Washington Post, 677 F.Supp. 9, 11 (D.D.C.1988), rev'd, 871 F.2d 1144 (D.C.Cir.1989) (The court found that 13 writers for The Washington Post qualified as exempt artistic professionals because their writing was individual, interpretive, and analytical; because success at The Post requires a special talent; and because they produce original and creative writing of high quality within the meaning of the regulations.... Although this case was reversed because factual disputes rendered disposition on summary judgment inappropriate, it serves to highlight the distinction between exempt and non-exempt newspaper work.). 12 b. Long Test Employees 68 The Monitor also contends that the district court misapplied the long test, and consequently, erroneously determined that the remainder of The Monitor employees at issue in this case were not exempt professionals. Specifically, The Monitor contends that the record demonstrates that the staff writers, photographers, and editors at The Monitor qualify as exempt artistic professionals under a correct application of the regulation. We disagree. 69 As we noted above, the district court's reliance on the Secretary's interpretations was not erroneous. Therefore, because we find that the district court conducted its analysis within the correct legal framework, we review its factfinding for clear error. 70
71 With regard to the staff writers salaried below $250 per week, their day-to-day responsibilities were very similar to those of the staff writers discussed above. For example, staff writer Margaret Burton testified that three fourths of her stories covered hard news, such as the proceedings of the school board, educational issues, trials and court hearings, as well as the legislative hearings. She estimated that only one fourth of her writing constituted feature writing requiring in-depth interpretation or analysis. 72 Staff writer Sharon Goss testified that during her first year at the paper, she spent approximately sixty percent of her time writing what she called feature stories. The topics of these stories were usually assigned by an editor, and rarely demanded the imagination, interpretation, or invention that characterizes exempt newspaper writing. 13 The remaining forty percent was divided between deadline work and clerical tasks, such as compiling local movie listings. During the latter portion of her tenure at The Monitor, as an educational reporter and a regional reporter, she covered educational issues and government and town planning meetings. 73 Staff writer Randall Keith testified that the vast bulk of his first year at The Monitor was spent working the city hall beat. His second year was divided between covering the police beat and business writing. His third year was spent as a regional reporter, covering town meetings and activities. Overall, he described his day to day duties as being primarily the type of general assignment work which could be accomplished by anyone with general intellectual training and ability. 74 As these examples make clear, the employees salaried below $250 had substantially the same responsibilities as those reporters, discussed above, with salaries above $250. Consequently, we find that the record contains ample support for the district court's conclusion that these reporters were not performing the type of work that would qualify them for the artistic professional exemption. Rather, like their higher-salaried counterparts, they were like the majority of reporters in that their work depends primarily on intelligence, diligence, and accuracy. They were not performing duties which would place them in that minority of reporters whose work depends primarily on 'invention, imaging [sic], or talent.'  75
76 We also find ample support in the record for the district court's conclusion that the photographers at The Monitor were not performing exempt work. Staff photographer Tom Sobolik testified that most of his film was shot at sporting events. He also listened to the police radio and photographed any newsworthy events it reported, including auto accidents and fires. Approximately seventy percent of Tom Sobolik's photography was assigned. Further, he testified that although there are some creative aspects to his photography, a large proportion of it is pretty run of the mill and pretty standardized. 77 Ken Williams testified that he spent most of his picture-shooting time photographing sporting events, the pet of the week, interiors and exteriors of buildings, press meetings, and meetings with the Governor. He also spent a large amount of time in the darkroom developing the pictures he and the other photographers had shot. He conceded that the darkroom work and the majority of his photography did not, in his mind, constitute artistic work. 78 The testimony of these photographers indicates that they, like the staff writers, were not performing the type of photographic work which would qualify them under the artistic exemption. 14 79
80 The Monitor asserts that the district court erroneously ruled that three editors were not exempt artistic professionals under the long test despite the Secretary's concession that they were exempt under the short test. Because this contention has absolutely no basis in the record, we reject it. 81 Admittedly, the Secretary concluded that the three editors at issue--Sharon Goss, Nancy Druelinger, and Lila Locksley--qualified for exemption once their salaries rose above $250. Having so concluded, however, the Secretary did not pursue, and the court did not award, back wages for the period during which these employees were paid over $250 per week. Rather, the court concluded that before their weekly salaries rose above $250, these editors were not performing work that qualified them for exemption under the long test for artistic professionals, 15 which requires that their primary duty consist of [w]ork that is original and creative in character and which depends primarily on the invention, imagination, or talent of the employee.... 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3(a)(2). 82 We find this conclusion to have ample support in the record. Ms. Locksley testified that her main duties were reading wire stories for grammatical and factual errors, writing headlines, and making improvements so that the stories were shorter or more readable. Ms. Druelinger offered similar testimony, stating that most of her time was spent writing headlines, reading over and rewriting wire stories, and laying out the pages. 16 Ms. Goss's testimony was comparable. Overall, their day-to-day work was the type of routine editorial work that is generally considered nonexempt. See 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.303(f) (The reporting of news, the rewriting of stories received from various sources, or the routine editorial work of a newspaper is not predominantly original and creative in character within the meaning of Sec. 541.3 and must be considered as nonexempt work.).
83 The district court also held that The Monitor 's journalists did not qualify under the learned professional exemption of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3. In a footnote to its brief, The Monitor joins its amici supporters in contending that this determination was error. 84 Exempted learned professions include law, accounting, engineering, architecture, nursing, and medicine. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.302. The Monitor would have us add journalism to this list, arguing that most of its employees had either journalism degrees or liberal arts degrees with an emphasis on writing. 85 The learned professional exemption applies to employees whose primary duty consists of [w]ork requiring knowledge of an advance [sic] type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study, as distinguished from a general academic education.... 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.3(a)(1). As the interpretations make clear, [t]he word 'customarily' implies that in the vast majority of cases the specific academic training is a prerequisite for entrance into the profession. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.302(d). Further, [t]he typical symbol of the professional training and the best prima facie evidence of its possession is, of course, the appropriate academic degree, and in these professions an advanced academic degree is a standard (if not universal) prerequisite. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.302(e)(1). The interpretations specifically state that the exemption does not encompass such quasi-professions as journalism in which the bulk of the employees have acquired their skill by experience rather than by any formal specialized training. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.302(d). 86 While we acknowledge that these interpretations are not controlling, we join the substantial number of courts that have chosen to follow them on this issue. See, e.g., Gateway Press, Inc., 13 F.3d at 698 (holding that the case law has held that reporters do not come within the scope of the learned exemption); Sun Publishing Co. v. Walling, 140 F.2d 445 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 728, 64 S.Ct. 946, 88 L.Ed. 1564 (1944) (rejecting the contention that writers and reporters are learned professionals); Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 706 F.Supp. 493, 501-02 (N.D.Tex.1988) (holding that despite the fact that many broadcast journalists hold undergraduate degrees and adhere to an established code of ethics, they are not learned professionals because, inter alia, their training is more akin to an apprenticeship than to intellectual instruction and study), aff'd, 918 F.2d 1220, 1226 (5th Cir.1990); Freeman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 846 F.Supp. 1109, 1154-55 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (In holding that the broadcast journalists were not exempt learned professionals, the court noted that journalism interpretations remain persuasive despite their age because, inter alia, experience and on-the-job training still play a substantial role in the training of journalists....). 87 In upholding the district court's finding that the journalists at The Monitor do not qualify under the learned professional exemption, we note that many experts in the field believe that journalism can only be learned in the newsroom itself. No particular academic degree is a prerequisite for entrance into the field and applicants are not required to demonstrate mastery over a specific body of knowledge. Rather, as Dean Bagdikian from the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley testified, editors hiring entry-level journalists are mainly concerned with whether the applicant's writing samples demonstrate accuracy, intelligence, and an ability to write clearly. Applicants possessing these qualities are the most likely to absorb the on-the-job training and become successful journalists. The importance of actual newspaper experience as opposed to journalism courses is demonstrated by the fact that top-flight newspapers generally hire only experienced applicants with demonstrable journalism skills. See Sherwood, 677 F.Supp. at 11. In light of these considerations, we agree with the district court's determination that the journalists at The Monitor are not exempt learned professionals.
88 The Monitor asserts that we must vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court for its alleged failure to make the findings of fact required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). Rule 52(a) requires that [i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury ... the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.... Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). We have previously noted, however, that the purpose of the rule is to apprise the appellate court of the grounds on which the trial court based its decision. Applewood Landscape & Nursery Co., Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 884 F.2d 1502, 1503 (1st Cir.1989) (citation omitted). Therefore, findings are sufficient so long as they indicate the factual basis for the ultimate conclusion. Kelley v. Everglades Drainage District, 319 U.S. 415, 422, 63 S.Ct. 1141, 1145, 87 L.Ed. 1485 (1943). The  'judge need only make brief, definite, pertinent findings and conclusions upon the contested matters; there is no necessity for over-elaboration of detail or particularization of facts.'  Applewood Landscape, 884 F.2d at 1503 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), advisory committee's note to 1946 Amendment). As long as such 'brief' and 'pertinent' findings are made and 'the record as a whole supports the district court's findings of fact,' we can affirm its result. Id. at 1503 (citations omitted). Further, even where the district court's findings were poorly done because they consisted mainly of mere conclusions ... and [did] not articulate specific factual bases for the trial court's boilerplate decision, there was no Rule 52(a) defect because despite the factual shortcomings, the basis for the court's decision is clear [and the] record gives substantial and unequivocal support for the ultimate conclusion. Unt v. Aerospace Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1444 (9th Cir.1985), cited with approval in Applewood Landscape, 884 F.2d at 1504. We have also noted that anemic factual findings are not fatal to the decision so long as a complete understanding of the issues may be had from the record on appeal. Applewood Landscape, 884 F.2d at 1504 (citations omitted). 89 After reviewing both the record and the opinion with these principles in mind, we conclude that the district court's findings of fact are adequate. The Monitor 's position throughout the trial, put forth by its expert witnesses and its editor-in-chief, was that the technological advances in the field of journalism had rendered the Secretary's interpretations obsolete and that most, if not all, employees in the field today were exempt professionals. The Monitor tried to highlight the changes in the newspaper business brought about in the last forty years and explain how these changes had undermined the pertinence of the Secretary's interpretations. The district court's opinion makes it clear that it simply did not find this evidence sufficient to render the interpretations inapplicable. Newspapers of New England, Inc., 834 F.Supp. at 535-36. 90 Once the district court accepted the Secretary's interpretations as persuasive authority, the rest of its decision was all but determined. The Monitor presented little or no evidence suggesting that the employees at issue fell into that minority of reporters whose work was dependent on invention, imagination, or talent. The Monitor made no significant attempt to differentiate the work of its reporters, photographers, and editors from the work done at every newspaper throughout the country. Given this framework, the district court's admittedly meager findings of fact provide an adequate basis for appellate review. Between the opinion and the record, we have garnered a thorough understanding of the proceedings below, and that is all that Rule 52(a) requires.