Opinion ID: 787525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Computer Professional Exemption

Text: 18 To establish that Martin is a computer professional under the regulations and therefore not entitled to overtime, AEP must demonstrate that (1) the employee is compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $250 per week or that the employee is compensated on an hourly basis at a rate in excess of 6½ times the minimum wage; (2) the employee's primary duty consists of the performance of ... [w]ork that requires theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering, and [the employee is] employed and engaged in these activities as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker in the computer software field ...; and (3) the employee's primary duty includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment. 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.3(a)(4), 541.3(e). 19 First, AEP must establish that Martin is paid on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than $250 per week or that he is compensated on an hourly basis at a rate in excess of 6 ½ times the minimum wage. 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(e). The evidence establishes that Martin is paid a salary. It does not matter that Martin must make up partial-day absences or that Martin's hours are prescribed and he must obtain approval from his supervisor to vary his hours. See Renfro v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 370 F.3d 512, 516 (6th Cir.2004); Schaefer, 358 F.3d at 400. Martin argues in his reply brief that he is not a salaried employee because AEP pays him straight overtime for some overtime hours, based on Kennedy v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 242 F.Supp.2d 542 (C.D.Ill.2003), which subsequently has been vacated and reconsidered at Kennedy v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 252 F.Supp.2d 737 (C.D.Ill.2003). We need not consider this novel (and only partially briefed) argument, however, because we can decide Martin's status on the ground below. 20 AEP must raise a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Martin's primary duty consists of the performance of ... [w]ork that requires theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering, and [whether he is] employed and engaged in these activities as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker in the computer software field. 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.3(a)(4). Thus, although Martin is not a systems analyst, programmer, or software engineer, he could still be exempt from overtime if his work requires theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering. 21 The district court concluded that Martin was a computer professional: Martin falls within the exemption for a professional employed in a computer-related occupation: there is no genuine dispute that his work requires highly-specialized knowledge of computers and software, and the evidence shows that he customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in his work. (emphasis added). The district court made an understandable mistake, one that arises from the common perception that all jobs involving computers are necessarily highly complex and require exceptional expertise. However, the regulations provide that an employee's primary duty must require theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering  not merely highly-specialized knowledge of computers and software.  This is an important difference. The former is a narrower class of jobs that requires a different level of knowledge and training than the latter. Further, it is a distinction which will only become more relevant as the range of computer-related jobs continues to broaden. 22 Martin does not do computer programming or software engineering; nor does he perform systems analysis, which involves making actual, analytical decisions about how Cook's computer network should function. Rather, Martin's tasks—installing and upgrading hardware and software on workstations, configuring desktops, checking cables, replacing parts, and trouble-shooting Windows problems—are all performed to predetermined specifications in the system design created by others. As Martin testified, he is provided the standard desktop for installation on the computers he configures, but he is not involved in determining what the desktop should look like. Thornburg explained, as we noted above, that IT Support is a maintenance organization that takes care of computer systems. 23 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(b) further clarifies the work involved in systems analysis, programming, and software engineering that falls under the exemption: 24 To be considered for exemption under § 541.3(a)(4), an employee's primary duty must consist of one or more of the following: 25 (1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications; 26 (2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; 27 (3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or 28 (4) a combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills. 29 AEP selectively identifies certain words from this regulation—particularly consulting with users and testing—and applies them out of context. There is simply no evidence that Martin consults with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications. Martin consults with users for purposes of repair and user support, not to determine what hardware, software, or system functional specifications the Cook facility will employ, as a systems analyst might. Likewise, when Martin does testing, he is testing things to figure out what is wrong with a workstation, printer, or piece of cable so that he can restore it to working order. He is not doing the type of testing that is involved in creating a system, determining the desired settings for a system, or otherwise substantively affecting the system. Indeed, he is merely ensuring that the particular machine is working properly according to the specifications designed and tested by other Cook employees. Maintaining the computer system within the predetermined parameters does not require theoretical and practical application of highly-specialized knowledge in computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering. 30 Martin has one project that might fall under the category of systems analysis: the Windows 2000 review. This project was apparently assigned after the instant lawsuit commenced, and, according to Thornburg, Martin was only  in the process right now of preparing to review a Windows 2000 operating system, as of the date of Thornburg's deposition. Even were we to conclude that this project is systems analysis, Thornburg was unable to provide any estimate of the amount of time that he expected Martin would spend on the project but did indicate elsewhere that Martin had various other assignments. This single project does not make systems analysis Martin's primary duty. 31 Finally, the dissent suggests that there is a dispute of material fact regarding whether Martin took training courses teaching him to develop standards. Even if such a factual dispute exists, it is not material because it is the job that one does, not the job that one is trained to do, that determines exempt status. We are required to analyze how the employee is actually spending his time, see 29 C.F.R. § 541.3(e); Ale v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 269 F.3d 680, 689-90 (6th Cir.2001), not what he is trained to do (but is not doing as his primary duty) or what he is training to do in the future. Nor are trainees bona fide computer professionals. 29 C.F.R. § 541.303(c). Only at such a time that systems analysis becomes Martin's primary duty can AEP classify him as a bona fide computer professional. 32 Since AEP has only presented one task—the Windows 2000 project—that might fall under the computer professional exemption and since, even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to AEP, that task is not Martin's primary duty, AEP has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Martin is a bona fide computer professional. AEP has not met its burden under the computer professional exemption.