Court Opinion

ID: 9843274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:32:01.700941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:37.081799
License: Public Domain

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
I concur in the majority’s ruling insofar as it concludes that the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant was in error. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence in the record for defendant to avoid summary judgment. Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether plaintiff was properly categorized as a “computer professional.” In particular, deposition testimony reveals that plaintiff had not only been assigned “the Windows 2000 project,” but had been sent to training courses aimed at teaching him how to “develop standards that [are] use[d] on [defendant’s] operating systems.” As plaintiff attended these courses, his duties *587“evolv[edj.” This testimony demonstrates that plaintiffs primary duties might well have classified him as a “computer professional.” Accordingly, I would remand the case for trial.