Opinion ID: 203027
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Primary duty related to management and includes exercise of discretion

Text: The next questions are whether Cash's primary duty at Boston Harley (a) was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to management or general business operations of [Boston Harley] or its customers, and (b) include[d] the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance. 29 C.F.R. § 541.200. The term `primary duty' means the principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee performs. Id. § 541.700. Determination of an employee's primary duty must be based on all the facts in a particular case, with the major emphasis on the character of the employee's job as a whole. Id. The phrase `directly related to the management or general business operations' in the exemption's second requirement refers to the type of work performed by the employee. Id. § 541.201(a). To meet this requirement, an employee must perform work directly related to assisting with the running or servicing of the business, as distinguished, for example, from working on a manufacturing production line or selling a product in a retail or service establishment. Id. Work directly related to management or general business operations includes work in functional areas such as finance, quality control, and personnel management. Id. § 541.201(b). In general, the exercise of discretion and independent judgment, i.e., the exemption's third requirement, involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered. Id. § 541.202(a). The term `matters of significance,' to which that discretion must apply, refers to the level of importance or consequence of the work performed. Id. Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 541.203 provides examples of employees who generally meet the duties requirements for the administrative exemption. For instance, employees in the financial-services industry are generally exempt if their duties include work such as collecting and analyzing information regarding the customer's income, assets, investments or debts; determining which financial products best meet the customer's needs and financial circumstances; advising the customer regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different financial products; and marketing, servicing or promoting the employer's financial products. Id. § 541.203(b). On the other hand, a financial-services employee whose primary duty is selling financial products does not qualify for the administrative exemption. Id. Similarly, human-resources managers who formulate, interpret, or implement employment policies generally meet the duties requirements for the exemption, but personnel clerks who merely `screen' applicants to obtain data regarding their minimum qualifications generally do not meet the duties requirements. Id. § 541.203(e). The caselaw is consistent with these examples. In John Alden we affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a life-insurance company, concluding that the company's marketing representatives-who worked with outside agents to sell insurance policies to customers-fell under the administrative exemption. 126 F.3d at 3. The first (salary basis) requirement was not at issue. The Court explained that the marketing representatives' duties met the second (management) requirement because they were engaged in something more than routine selling efforts focused simply on particular sales transactions. Id. at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, their agent contacts [were] aimed at promoting (i.e., increasing, developing, facilitating, and/or maintaining) customer sales generally.  Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Their duties also met the third (discretion) requirement: they had discretion in choosing which agents to contact on any given day, and concerning which products to discuss with each agent. Id. at 13. In addition, the marketing representatives rel[ied] on their own knowledge of an agent's business to help tailor proposals for the agent's end-customers. Id. [T]he content of a given conversation with an agent [was] dictated by the needs or customer base of that agent, or by the particular information sought by the marketing representative during that phone call. Id. at 14. The Court therefore concluded that the marketing representatives were not merely `skilled' workers who operate[d] within a strict set of rules, rather, they exercised significant discretion. Id. Consequently, the Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the company. Id. ; cf. Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220, 1231 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that television station producers' jobs did not fit into administrative exemption because they produced the station's news-department product and were not involved in the administrative operations). In the run-up to his employment, Cash provided Boston Harley with his conception of the job that he would assume as the New Purchases/Customer Relations Manager. He described these duties as including the following: (i) developing an overall Customer Service strategic plan; (ii) developing a clear business plan to support organizational changes; and (iii) taking appropriate action regarding delivery problems. On the job, he performed some, but not all, of the functions that his proposed job description anticipated. He worked with various Boston Harley departments to ensure that motorcycles were properly outfitted and delivered. If ordered parts were not installed on the motorcycles, Cash instructed the Service Manager concerning what needed to be done. He also was to stay in contact with the customers to make sure that they were happy with the service they were receiving. It is reasonable to infer that his performance of these duties was infused by his broader pre-job conception of his responsibilities. Cash's employment at Boston Harley meets the management and discretion requirements of the administrative exemption. First, like the marketing representatives in John Alden, Cash was engaged in something more than routine selling efforts focused simply on particular sales transactions. 126 F.3d at 10. Rather, he focused on improving customer service generally, by coordinating with various Boston Harley departments to ensure that customers were satisfied with their purchase and that they would provide Boston Harley with positive feedback reports. Cf. 29 C.F.R. § 541.203(b) (noting that a financial-services representative who determin[es] which financial products best meet the customer's needs and financial circumstances is generally exempt, whereas a financial-services representative who merely sell[s] financial products is not). Second, just as the marketing representatives in John Alden exercised significant discretion by, among other things, fashioning bid proposals that me[t] the needs of the agent's customers, 126 F.3d at 14, Cash exercised discretion in reacting to the unique needs of Boston Harley's customers. Thus, Cash was not merely [a] `skilled' worker[] who operate[d] within a strict set of rules. Id. Moreover, in return for performing his duties, he earned a $60,000 salary, which was greater or equal to that of all the other managers, except for Buchbaum. Cash's attendance at management meetings, albeit in a limited fashion, further supports his status as a manager. In sum, Cash did not simply produce a product; he exercised independent judgment as he engaged in the company's business operations.