Opinion ID: 4521334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Overtime Law

Text: State exemption criteria in the six states implicated in the class plaintiffs' claims largely track the FLSA. 3 Indeed, Chipotle conceded below that state executive/administrative exemption[s] . . . , unless specifically noted, parallel the analysis set forth under the FLSA. Dkt. No. 1100, at 22. There are, however, some minor differences. As Chipotle notes, whereas under federal law the amount of time an employee spends performing an activity is merely a useful guide to determining that employee's primary duty, see 29 C.F.R. § 541.700(b), Colorado and Washington have strict percentage limitations governing how much time an employee can spend on non-exempt activities and still properly be considered an exempt employee, see 7 Colo. Code Regs. § 1103- 1.5(b) (providing that overtime law only applies only if the employee spends a minimum of 50% of the workweek in duties directly related to supervision); Wash. Admin. Code § 296-128-510(5) (providing that overtime law applies only if 3 See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 12, §§ 146-1.4, 146-1.6; N.Y. Lab. Law § 195 (New York); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527.1 (Missouri); 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 105/4a (Illinois); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.22(a1); 13 N.C. Admin. Code § 12.080 (North Carolina); see also Dejesus v. HF Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 726 F.3d 85, 89 n.5 (2d Cir. 2013). 17 the employee does not devote as much as 40% . . . of his hours worked . . . to activities which are not directly and closely related to the performance of managerial work). Thus, the exemption analysis under state law is largely the same as the analysis under the FLSA, subject to these minor caveats.