Opinion ID: 775086
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Supervising Two or More Employees

Text: 49 To qualify for the executive exemption, the Baldwins must customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees. 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.1(f). DOL regulations interpret customarily and regularly to indicate a frequency that must be greater than occasional but that may be less than constant. 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.107(b). Except for three weeks in January, 1998, assistant managers were employed at the park during the Baldwins' employment as managers. The district court concluded that the Baldwins met the supervisory prong of the duties test because under the terms of the agreement, the Baldwins were responsible for training the assistant managers, ensuring their compliance with policies and procedures, and reporting their hours worked every two weeks; the Baldwins evaluated the work of assistant managers; and the Baldwins recommended firing assistant managers in one instance. We agree. 50 The Baldwins contend that the training is not supervision for purposes of the FLSA because their direction only amounted to correcting the assistant managers' mistakes and ensuring their compliance with company policy outlined in a manual. However, ensuring employee compliance with a management manual qualifies as supervision for the purposes of the regulations. See Burger King I, 672 F.2d at 226 (The fact that Burger King has well-defined policies, and that tasks are spelled out in great detail, is insufficient to negate this conclusion. Ensuring that company policies are carried out constitutes the very essence of supervisory work.) (internal quotation marks omitted). 51 The Baldwins further assert that the only time they directed the work of the assistant managers was during the two to four week training periods. However, this training is not all that the Baldwins did. They also supervised the assistant managers. 52 The Baldwins further assert that, other than during training, they did not supervise the assistant managers because the agreement did not require managers to be on-site simultaneously with the assistant managers; the managers and the assistant managers worked at non-overlapping times; and the real purpose of the assistant managers was to allow the managers some time off. We disagree. The Baldwins' continuous simultaneous physical presence with the assistant managers is not an essential requirement of supervision as long the Baldwins supervised the assistant managers' work in other ways. See Sturm v. TOC Retail, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 1346, 1354 (M.D. Ga. 1994) (concluding that a convenience store manager need not be physically present to supervise other employees where the manager scheduled work shift of subordinates, were on-call to address problems, and reviewed the workers' shift performance). 53 Here, additional factors showed supervision. The agreement calls for the Baldwins to oversee the performance of the assistant managers. There is no indication that the assistant managers were regularly supervised by Trailer Inns, Inc.'s headquarters or anyone else except the Baldwins. The Baldwins divided work responsibilities among the managers and the assistant managers, were on-call to respond to problems, and made sure that the assistant managers completed their responsibilities and complied with management policy. 54 The Baldwins supervision meets the requirements of the executive exemption.