Opinion ID: 2982315
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Changes of Status

Text: Though hiring, firing, advancement and promotion are commonly understood terms in the context of employment, the concept of a change of status has required definition. In this case, whether or not Plaintiffs had significant influence over employees’ changes of status is of particular importance; even if Defendants cannot show that Plaintiffs were involved in hiring and firing or promotion, they can satisfy the fourth prong of the DOL’s executive exemption test by -4- No. 13-1816, Jeffrey Bacon, et al. v. Eaton Corp., et al. demonstrating that Plaintiffs were instrumental in other employment status changes such as reassignments or changes in benefits or pay. This Court has defined a change of status as a tangible employment action that constitutes “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Keeton v. Flying J, Inc., 429 F.3d 259, 263 (6th Cir. 2005)(internal quotation omitted); see also Pa. State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 144 (2004). De minimis actions, or actions that are not materially adverse, are not changes of status. See White v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 364 F.3d 789, 795 (6th Cir. 2004). Changes in status “‘must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.’” Sanford v. Main St. Baptist Church Manor, Inc., 327 Fed. Appx. 587, 597 (6th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, temporary reassignments that do not cause pay or benefit reductions are not changes of status, as a matter of law. See White, 364 F.3d at 795. The DOL provides the following three-prong test for determining whether an employee has significant influence over other employees’ “changes of status”: “[1] whether it is part of the employee’s job duties to make such suggestions and recommendations; [2] the frequency with which such suggestions and recommendations are made or requested; and [3] the frequency with which the employee’s suggestions and recommendations are relied upon.” See 29 C.F.R. 541.105. Occasional suggestions and recommendations do not suffice to demonstrate that an employee had significant influence over other employees’ changes of status. Id. Plaintiffs contend that their employment with Defendants did not satisfy this test, and that, accordingly, the four-prong executive exemption test is necessarily unsatisfied. -5- No. 13-1816, Jeffrey Bacon, et al. v. Eaton Corp., et al.