Dennis Pieretti v. Dent Enterprises, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. Judge: NYGAARD, Authoring.

Case: 13-1631

Document: 003111522825

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/31/2014

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 13-1631
__________
DENNIS PIERETTI,
Appellant
v.
DENT ENTERPRISES; KEVIN DENT
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 2-11-cv-02179)
District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle, III
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 13, 2013
BEFORE: HARDIMAN, SCIRICA, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: January 31, 2014)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

Case: 13-1631

Document: 003111522825

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/31/2014

Dennis Pieretti appeals the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Dent Enterprises. 1 Pieretti claims that Dentco failed to pay him overtime, in violation of
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 333.101-333.115) and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 260.1-260.12).
He also claims a breach of contract. We will affirm.
This opinion lacks any precedential value and so we write solely for the parties,
whose familiarity with the case obviates the need for a full recitation of the facts and
procedural history. We exercise plenary review. Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia, 719
F.3d 295, 299 (3d Cir. 2013).
We reject Pieretti’s claim that the District Court burdened him with proving that
his position was not exempt from statutory requirements for overtime pay. In asserting
its affirmative defense, Dentco relied upon Pieretti’s testimony to substantiate its
argument that his Quality Assurance Manager position fit within the Minimum Wage
Act’s administrative exemption. See 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 333.105(a)(5). The District
Court’s reference to this evidence at summary judgment in no way shifted the burden of
proof to Pieretti.
Next, we are not persuaded that Pieretti’s occasional performance of a few labororiented tasks—such as occasionally clipping a few stray weeds to enhance his
photographic report of the subcontractors’ landscaping work—created a factual dispute
on whether the administrative exemption applied to his job with Dentco. In each
instance, Pieretti admitted that these tasks were done in the context of his evaluative and
1

Pieretti does not contest the District Court’s grant of Kevin Dent’s motion to dismiss.
2

Case: 13-1631

Document: 003111522825

Page: 3

Date Filed: 01/31/2014

reporting responsibilities on the work done by subcontractors. As a result, these tasks
were “directly and closely related” to the performance of his administrative job (34 Pa.
Code §231.83(4)), and did not create a need for Dentco to quantify the time spent on
them. We do not find any factual disputes.
Regarding Pieretti’s remaining Minimum Wage Act claim, the characterization of
his position as “production” and his minimization of the independent discretion it
involved were futile attempts to recast his job. The District Court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Dentco was based upon its consideration of the responsibilities
comprising his job, such as: recommending subcontractors, on-site evaluation of
subcontractor work, recommending corrective action or termination for poor performance
of subcontractors, and managing business relationships with customers. It also
considered Pieretti’s autonomy in setting his schedule and in determining the
composition of his work day. The District Court did not err.
Finally, Pieretti’s breach of contract and WPCL claims lack merit. The District
Court correctly ruled that Pieretti failed to produce any evidence of Dentco’s contractual
obligation to pay overtime wages and that, in the absence of such a contract, the WPCL
provides no independent right for Pieretti to sue. Accordingly, the District Court
properly dismissed both claims.
For all of these reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.

3