Opinion ID: 2464470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: It Was Error To Grant APT Summary Judgment On The Overtime Compensation Claim.

Text: The Alaska Wage and Hour Act (AWHA) governs the payment of overtime. [4] AWHA does not apply to bona fide executive or administrative employees. [5] An administrative employee is one (A) whose primary duty consists of work directly related to management policies or supervising the general business operations of the employer; (B) who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; (C) who performs work only under general supervision; (D) who is paid on a salary or fee basis; (E) who regularly and directly assists a proprietor or an exempt executive employee of the employer; and (F) who performs work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience or knowledge and does not devote more than 20 percent . . . of the employee's weekly hours to activities that are not described in this paragraph or (7) or (11) of this section.[ [6] ] An executive employee is one (A) whose primary duty consists of the management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized branch, department, or subdivision of the enterprise; (B) who customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees; (C) who has the authority to hire or fire or effect any other change of status of other employees or whose suggestions or recommendations regarding these kinds of changes are given particular weight; (D) who customarily and regularly exercises discretionary authority; (E) who does not devote more than 20 percent . . . of the employee's weekly hours to activities that are not directly and closely related to the work described in this paragraph or (1) or (11) of this section; and (F) who is compensated on a salary basis.[ [7] ] Hoendermis argues that the superior court failed to consider the evidence she set forth supporting her claim that she was not an administrative or executive employee. We must decide if there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Hoendermis was an administrative or executive employee and consequently not entitled to overtime compensation under AWHA. We must construe the evidence in the light most favorable to Hoendermis because the superior court granted summary judgment against her. [8] An employee must meet all of the requirements established in the definitions of administrative or executive employees in order to be exempt from AWHA; an issue of material fact as to only one of the requirements is sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the overtime compensation claim. [9] In its summary judgment motion, APT has the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [10] Upon this initial showing, the burden shifts to Hoendermis, who then must set forth specific facts showing genuine issues and cannot rest on mere allegations. [11] The parties can submit affidavits supporting or opposing a motion for summary judgment provided they are based upon personal knowledge. [12] APT established a prima facie case that Hoendermis was an administrative or executive employee by presenting sworn factual assertions regarding each requirement. These, along with Hoendermis's disputing sworn factual assertions, are discussed below. In her affidavit supporting APT's motion for summary judgment, Phelps asserted that Hoendermis's responsibilities were primarily managerial, [13] including directing administrative staff and overseeing all aspects of clinic operation. Hoendermis presented conflicting material facts. She asserted in her affidavit supporting her opposition to APT's motion for summary judgment that by November 2005 her primary duties were no longer related to management policies because Phelps had gradually removed her from management. She stated that she did not supervise any employees and did not advise Phelps on financial or other aspects of the business. APT, in its reply to Hoendermis's opposition to summary judgment, pointed out that Hoendermis referred to herself as a practice manager or administrator in business letters sent after the November 2005 reorganization. APT also referred to Hoendermis's post-APT resume, in which she referred to her position at APT as practice manager and described her managerial experience. Hoendermis's use of the practice manager job title is not determinative. Federal labor regulations provide that [a] job title alone is insufficient to establish the exempt status of an employee, which must be determined on the basis of whether the employee's salary and duties meet the requirements for exempt status. [14] Hoendermis's description of managerial experience on her resume is also not determinative because it could have referred to her work before November 2005. Hoendermis raised a genuine issue of material fact on the issue whether her job responsibilities were primarily managerial. Phelps asserted in her affidavit that Hoendermis exercised discretion and independent judgment, [15] regularly direct[ing] the work of the clinic's nonprofessional (administrative) staff . . ., monitoring and making reports regarding financial issues of the clinic and had general oversight of all aspects of clinic operation. Hoendermis presented a genuine issue of material fact, asserting in her affidavit that she did not exercise discretion or independent judgment. She stated that she did not make financial decisions, had no authority to change leases, and could not discipline, hire, or fire employees. Phelps asserted in her affidavit that Hoendermis was paid on a salary. [16] Hoendermis asserted in her opposition to summary judgment that the fact that she had to keep track of her time on a time card was inconsistent with exempt status. We have held that an employee was treated as an hourly rather than a salaried employee when he was subjected to a rigid hourly schedule and the employer strictly enforc[ed] that schedule with severe disciplinary sanctions. [17] This is not the case here. Hoendermis did keep track of which days she worked on a time sheet, but she did not maintain that she was held to a rigid schedule, and Phelps stated in her deposition that her employees were self-managed. Hoendermis's time sheets did not establish an issue of material fact on the issue of salary. Phelps asserted in her affidavit that if Hoendermis devoted any of her work time to matters other than administrative or executive functions, it was less than 20%. [18] Phelps also asserted in her affidavit that Hoendermis's work required special experience and knowledge in areas of business management, bookkeeping and accounting, and legal areas. Hoendermis asserted in her affidavit that at least 50 percent of her day was spent doing clerical work. We have held that similar conflicting factual assertions as to managerial/non-managerial time allocation created a genuine issue of material fact. [19] Hoendermis's assertion created an issue of material fact concerning the allocation of her time. Phelps asserted in her affidavit that Hoendermis regularly directed the work of the clinic's nonprofessional staff. [20] Hoendermis presented an issue of material fact, stating in her affidavit that she did not supervise the administrative employees and pointing to Phelps's assertions in her deposition that Hoendermis did not supervise anyone beginning two months before her termination. Phelps stated in her affidavit that Hoendermis had responsibility for hiring and firing administrative staff and made recommendations to [Phelps] concerning raises. [21] Hoendermis countered, asserting in her affidavit that Phelps evaluated all of the administrative staff's work, decided on raises, and made all decisions on the hiring and firing of those employees. APT, to refute Hoendermis's assertion, pointed to e-mails in which Hoendermis communicated with potential employees, scheduling interviews and making offers. The most recent e-mail was dated June 17, 2005, however, well before November 2005 when Phelps removed Hoendermis from many of her responsibilities and well before Hoendermis's termination in January 2006. The e-mails do not preclude Hoendermis from establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding her nonexempt status for up to six months prior to her termination. Hoendermis presented an issue of material fact regarding her hiring and firing responsibilities. Phelps asserted in her affidavit that Hoendermis only worked under Phelps's general supervision. [22] Hoendermis did not contest this. Phelps asserted in her affidavit that Hoendermis regularly and directly assisted her. [23] Hoendermis did not contest this. From the affidavits and other evidence submitted by both parties, there are several genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment. Deciding whether Hoendermis is entitled to overtime compensation will depend on weighing the credibility and persuasive strength of the parties' witnesses and evidence: this is the responsibility of the fact finder. [24] We reverse the grant of summary judgment on the overtime compensation claim. [25]