Opinion ID: 3161323
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Dunkin' Donuts Decision

Text: The role played by the Burger King assistant managers, as described in our decision, appears to largely coincide with the responsibilities of Marzuq and Chantre as depicted by the evidence 7 This holding covered only assistant managers earning at least $250 per week. Pursuant to the regulations then in effect, the eligibility of such employees for the exemption was evaluated under a short test consisting of only two requirements: the employee's primary duty must be management, and he or she must regularly direct the work of at least two other employees. See Burger King, 672 F.2d at 223. The long test applicable to employees earning between $155 and $250 per week included, inter alia, a time limitation on work not 'closely related' to their management duties (no more than 40 percent). Id. at 223-24. As revised in 2004, and as described above, the regulations now set out a single test applicable to employees earning at least $455 per week. See supra Section A; see also Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233, 1265-66 & n.48 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining the shift from two tests to one). 8 We affirmed the district court's judgment that assistant managers earning less than $250 were entitled to overtime pay because of the 40 percent limit -- under the long test -- on the amount of non-managerial work they could perform. See 672 F.2d at 228. - 12 - recounted in Section I above. Given that factual similarity, the district court unsurprisingly looked to our analysis in Burger King for guidance. The court stated that, like the Burger King assistant managers, it is clear that plaintiffs were at all times 'in charge' of their respective stores, including while serving customers like normal hourly employees. Dist. Ct. Op. at 9; see also id. at 8 (noting that [t]he Burger King court found that an employee can still be 'managing' even while physically doing something else). The district court also expressly invoked the FLSA regulation that provides that employees who perform exempt and nonexempt work concurrently are not disqualified from the executive exemption. Id. at 9 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 541.106(a)). Hence, echoing our holding in Burger King, the district court found it undisputed that plaintiffs had management as their primary duty, even though they spent much of their time on nonexempt work and had little discretion to make significant decisions. Id. In addition, despite their limited authority overall, the court found that plaintiffs wielded influence over personnel decisions -- the other contested requirement for the exemption.9 9 The parties do not dispute that plaintiffs satisfy the remaining two factors for the executive exemption. They earned at least $455 per week, 29 C.F.R. § 541.100(a)(1) (2009), and they customarily and regularly direct[ed] the work of two or more other employees, id. § 541.100(a)(3). - 13 - Id. at 11. Accordingly, the court held that the undisputed facts show that plaintiffs were employed in a bona fide executive capacity, and thus not entitled to overtime pay. Id.