Opinion ID: 686722
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Artistic Professional Exemption

Text: 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.).