Nancy Williams v. GENEX Services, LLC
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01942-MJG. [999721018]. [14-1966]
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 1 of 20
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1966
NANCY A. WILLIAMS, on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
SANDRA SHERMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENEX SERVICES, LLC, f/k/a GENEX SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01942-MJG)
Argued:
October 28, 2015
Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.
WYNN,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
December 18, 2015
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge Hamilton wrote the
opinion in which Judge Agee and Judge Wynn joined.
ARGUED: Nicholas Woodfield, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Russell Robert Bruch, MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF:
R. Scott Oswald, THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, P.C., Washington,
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 2 of 20
D.C.,
for
Appellant.
Michael
J.
Puma,
Pennsylvania, Allyson N. Ho, MORGAN, LEWIS &
Dallas, Texas, for Appellee.
2
Philadelphia,
BOCKIUS LLP,
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 3 of 20
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant, Nancy Williams (Williams), is employed
by Defendant-Appellee, Genex Services, LLC (Genex), as a Field
Medical Case Manager (FMCM).
She brought this action against
Genex claiming that Genex was required to pay her overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA or the Act), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201 to 219, and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), Md.
Code Lab. & Empl. §§ 3–401 to 3-431, for the overtime hours she
worked.
Genex.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Williams appeals, and we now affirm.
I
A
The
FLSA
protects
“all
covered
wages and oppressive working hours.”
workers
from
substandard
Barrentine v. Arkansas-
Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 739 (1981); see also 29
U.S.C. §
202(a)
(noting
that
the
FLSA
protects
“the
minimum
standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general
well-being
of
workers”).
Toward
these
ends,
the
FLSA
establishes the general rule that employers must pay overtime
compensation to employees who work more than forty hours during
a seven-day work week.
29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). 1
1
Employees are
Overtime compensation is paid “at a rate not less than one
and one-half times the regular rate at which [the employee] is
employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).
3
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 4 of 20
entitled to overtime compensation according to the general rule
unless
their
employer
exemptions applies.
proves
that
one
of
the
Act’s
many
See Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S.
388, 392 (1960) (noting that the FLSA’s “exemptions are to be
narrowly construed against the employers seeking to assert them
and their application limited to those establishments plainly
and unmistakably within their terms and spirit”).
Genex asserts
that Williams is not entitled to overtime compensation under the
general rule because she is “employed in a bona fide . . .
professional capacity.”
29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).
The FLSA provides that any “employee employed in a bona
fide . . . professional capacity” is exempt from the general
rule requiring overtime compensation.
Id. § 213(a)(1).
The
responsibility for outlining the contours of this exemption lies
with
the
Secretary
of
Labor
(the
Secretary).
See
id.
(permitting the Secretary to “define[] and delimit[]” various
terms in the FLSA).
regulations
define
professional
The relevant Department of Labor (DOL)
“employee
capacity,”
employed
id.,
as
in
any
a
bona
fide
employee
.
.
who
.
is
“[c]ompensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less
than
$455
per
week,”
29
C.F.R.
§
541.300(a)(1),
and
whose
“primary duty is the performance of work,” id. § 541.300(a)(2),
“[r]equiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science
or
learning
customarily
acquired
4
by
a
prolonged
course
of
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
specialized
Filed: 12/18/2015
intellectual
Pg: 5 of 20
instruction,”
id.
§ 541.300(a)(2)(i),
or “[r]equiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in
a
recognized
field
of
artistic
or
creative
endeavor,”
id.
§ 541.300(a)(2)(ii). 2
The
DOL
regulations
define
“primary
duty”
as
“the
principal, main, major or most important duty that the employee
performs.”
Id. § 541.700(a).
Under § 541.700(a),
[d]etermination 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. Factors to consider when determining the
primary duty of an employee include, but are not
limited to, the relative importance of the exempt
duties as compared with other types of duties; the
amount of time spent performing exempt work; the
employee’s relative freedom from direct supervision;
and the relationship between the employee’s salary and
the wages paid to other employees for the kind of
nonexempt work performed by the employee.
Id.
The DOL regulations recognize that the amount of time spent
performing
exempt
work
can
be
a
useful
guide
in
determining
whether exempt work is the primary duty of an employee:
2
The parties agree that “professional capacity” has the
same meaning under the FLSA and the MWHL.
Consequently, an
employee who is employed in a professional capacity under the
FLSA necessarily is employed in a professional capacity under
the MWHL.
See MD. Code Regs. 09.12.41.17 (“‘Professional
capacity’ has the meaning stated in 29 CFR §541.300 et seq.”).
Because the viability of Williams’ MWHL claim turns on the
viability of her FLSA claim, we focus our analysis on her FLSA
claim.
5
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 6 of 20
[E]mployees who spend more than 50 percent of their
time performing exempt work will generally satisfy the
primary duty requirement. Time alone, however, is not
the sole test, and nothing in this section requires
that exempt employees spend more than 50 percent of
their time performing exempt work.
Employees who do
not spend more than 50 percent of their time
performing exempt duties may nonetheless meet the
primary duty requirement if the other factors support
such a conclusion.
Id. § 541.700(b).
There is no dispute that Williams earns more than $455 per
week.
However, Genex claims that Williams’ primary duty is the
performance of work (1) requiring advanced knowledge, (2) in a
field of science or learning, (3) that is customarily acquired
by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction,
and, thus, the exemption, referred to in the DOL regulations as
the
“[l]earned
applies. 3
professional[]”
exemption,
id.
§ 541.301,
Williams counters by arguing that she is not engaged
in the performance of such work.
B
Genex
provides
integrated
managed
3
care
services
to
its
Under the DOL regulations, a registered nurse generally
meets the learned professional definition.
See 29 C.F.R.
§ 541.301(e)(2) (“Registered nurses who are registered by the
appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties
requirements for the learned professional exemption.”).
In
contrast, a licensed practical nurse generally does not meet the
learned
professional
definition
because
“possession
of
a
specialized advanced degree is not a prerequisite for entry
into” such an occupation.
Id.
It is a stipulated fact that
Williams is a registered nurse.
6
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
clients,
Filed: 12/18/2015
which
compensation
include
insurers.
Pg: 7 of 20
various
Such
employers
services
and
focus
on
workers’
controlling
health care and disability costs, ensuring that quality health
care is provided to injured workers, and improving return-towork rates.
At Genex, FMCMs help injured workers return to work
as quickly, safely, and cost-effectively as possible.
Williams began working for Genex as an FMCM in 2011 after
Genex acquired the assets of her former employer, Intracorp. 4
Williams is paid a salary by Genex.
She received $83,354.14 in
total compensation in 2012 and $81,103.29 in total compensation
in 2013.
Williams
(Nussdorf),
has
two
Branch
supervisors
Manager
for
at
Genex’s
Genex,
Field
Andy
Case
Nussdorf
Management
Branch in Elkridge, Maryland, and Sofia Harris (Harris), the
Case Management Supervisor for Genex’s Elkridge Office.
Because
FMCMs at Genex work in the field, rather than in an office,
Williams
rarely
November
5,
sees
2013
her
supervisors.
deposition
that
She
she
last
testified
saw
at
Nussdorf
her
in
September 2011 and that she last saw Harris in the summer of
2012.
Williams
testified
that
4
she
had
“[i]rregular”
phone
Williams received a Bachelor of Science in nursing from
Villa Julie College in 2007. In addition to being a registered
nurse, Williams holds several professional certifications,
including
Certified
Case
Manager,
Certified
Disability
Management Specialist, Certified Life Care Planner, Certified
Critical Care Nurse, and Medicare Set Aside Consultant.
7
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 8 of 20
contact with Nussdorf and Harris, indicating that “a week or a
month might go by without a phone call with them.”
(J.A. 247).
With regard to emails, Williams acknowledged that “sometimes a
long time goes by and there’s no communication” between her and
either Nussdorf or Harris.
(J.A. 252).
The parties agree that Maryland law requires an FMCM to be
a registered nurse (RN) and to have a Workers Compensation Case
Manager
Certification
from
the
Maryland
Board
of
Nursing.
Although Williams holds these credentials, she does not provide
hands-on
care.
description,
planning,
Williams
management
(J.A.
between
employers
to
involved
employees
for
and
in
682).
carriers,
and
Genex’s
“[r]esponsible
implementation
individuals
process.”
intermediary
according
is
coordination,
injured/disabled
providers,
Rather,
attorneys,
to
ensure
job
assessment,
evaluation
the
FMCMs
FMCM
medical
“work[]
of
case
as
medical
appropriate
an
care
and
cost-effective healthcare services and a medically rehabilitated
individual who is ready to return to an optimal level of work
and functioning.”
(J.A. 682).
As a result, each FMCM at Genex
is required to: (1) “[u]se[] clinical/nursing skills to help
coordinate the individual’s treatment program while maximizing
cost
containment”;
(2)
“[s]erve[]
as
an
intermediary
to
interpret and educate the individual on his/her disability, and
the treatment plan established by the case manager, physicians,
8
Appeal: 14-1966
and
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
therapists”;
(3)
Pg: 9 of 20
“[w]ork[]
with
the
physicians
and
therapists to set up medical assessments to develop an overall
treatment plan that ensures cost containment while meeting state
and other regulator’s guidelines”; (4) “[r]esearch[] alternative
treatment programs such as pain clinics, home health care, and
work
hardening”;
and
(5)
“[w]ork[]
with
[the]
employer[]
on
modifications to job duties based on medical limitations and the
employee[’]s functional assessment.”
When
working
with
an
(J.A. 683).
injured
worker’s
case,
Williams
assesses the injured worker’s medical condition and treatments
in an effort to better understand the case and to look for
opportunities to minimize the injured worker’s time away from
work.
She
interviews
injured
worker’s
medical
history,
the
pertinent
current
current treatment plan.
the
injured
injured
worker’s
worker
medical
status,
and
analyzes
information,
diagnosis,
the
including
prognosis,
and
From there, she continues to monitor
medical
condition.
She
often
attends
medical appointments with the injured worker and is free to ask
physicians about the course of treatment.
She educates both the
injured worker and the insurance claims adjuster on the injured
worker’s
injuries
and
treatments,
and
sometimes
makes
recommendations for alternative forms of treatment.
Williams
is
also
responsible
for
developing
an
individualized care plan that will assist the injured worker in
9
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 10 of 20
returning to work in a timely and safe manner.
Essential parts
of developing that plan include
setting mutually agreed-upon goals with measurable
objectives, determining action steps toward achieving
goals, and selecting essential resources and services
through consultation and collaboration with health
care professionals, the ill/injured person, and the
family or other support persons.
(J.A.
183-84).
Each
individualized
care
plan
that
Williams
develops must establish and document measurable short- and longterm goals for the injured worker.
Williams performs medical
research when needed to develop individualized care plans and
analyzes whether the goals established in the care plans have
been met.
whether
Individualized care plans also contain information on
the
existing
and
planned
medical
treatments
are
consistent with clinical criteria and treatment guidelines for
the medical condition.
FMCMs at Genex also prepare periodic status reports on the
condition
and/or
progress
of
the
injured
worker.
Most
of
Genex’s clients have a template or report format that FMCM’s use
in
preparing
medical
knowledge
status reports
nurses
these
in
reports.
and
and
Maryland
Williams
training
recognizes
requires
in
developing
that
that
the
care
reflect current nursing practices.
knowledge
and
training
to
provide
10
admits
she
care
standard
plans
be
of
uses
her
plans
and
care
for
tailored
to
She also uses her medical
relevant
information
to
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
physicians
Filed: 12/18/2015
so
that
the
Pg: 11 of 20
physicians
can
make
the
decisions regarding the injured worker’s treatment.
appropriate
She is also
free to make recommendations to physicians concerning a specific
course of treatment, and the record reflects that on occasion
her recommendations are followed.
In addition to creating her own individualized care plans,
Williams evaluates life care plans to assist Genex clients in
litigation.
For example, in one evaluation, Williams examined
the patient’s extensive medical records, interviewed the patient
and her mother, conducted research, and explained why the life
care
plan
things,
proposed
the
was
patient’s
“wholly
disability
void”
was,
because,
in
her
among
other
professional
opinion, attributable to a preexisting condition rather than an
auto accident.
(J.A. 544).
C
On July 3, 2013, Williams brought a two-count complaint
against
Genex
in
the
District of Maryland.
United
States
District
Court
for
the
Count I pled a claim under the MWHL, and
Count II pled a FLSA claim. 5
Following discovery, GENEX moved
5
Williams filed the complaint as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated to her.
At least one
individual, Sandra Sherman, sought to join the purported class.
No class certification order was entered by the district court
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1), and the parties agreed, “for the sake
of efficiency,” (Appellant’s Br. at 3), to limit discovery to
(Continued)
11
Appeal: 14-1966
for
Doc: 36
summary
Filed: 12/18/2015
judgment,
professional.
asserting
Pg: 12 of 20
that
Williams
was
a
learned
On September 4, 2014, in a written memorandum
opinion, the district court agreed that Williams was a learned
professional.
Because Williams is a licensed RN and is required
to be an RN to work for Genex in Maryland, the district court
determined that Williams performed work in a field of science
that
is
customarily
acquired
by
specialized intellectual instruction.
a
prolonged
course
of
The district court then
turned to the work requiring advanced knowledge prong, which is
defined in relevant part as follows:
The phrase “work requiring advanced knowledge” means
work which is predominantly intellectual in character,
and which includes work requiring the consistent
exercise of discretion and judgment, as distinguished
from performance of routine mental, manual, mechanical
or physical work.
An employee who performs work
requiring
advanced
knowledge
generally
uses
the
advanced knowledge to analyze, interpret or make
deductions from varying facts or circumstances.
29 C.F.R. § 541.301(b).
in
a
light
concluded
knowledge.
advanced
most
that
Applying this definition to the facts
favorable
Williams
to
Williams,
performed
work
the
district
requiring
court
advanced
The district court observed that Williams “uses her
knowledge
to
examine
injured
employees’
medical
whether Williams’ job as an FMCM was properly classified as
exempt under the FLSA and the MWHL.
In effect, the parties
agreed that if Williams’ claims failed, so too did the claims of
any purported class members.
12
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 13 of 20
conditions and advise[s] them on what to expect.” (J.A. 75-76).
The
district
court
further
observed
that
Williams’
status
reports “indicate that she not only . . . assesses and analyzes
claimants’
medical
conditions,
commentary and suggestions.”
but
also
(J.A. 76).
provides
her
own
The district court
also cited the fact that Williams was not closely supervised and
the fact that she regularly exercises judgment and discretion in
support of its conclusion that Williams’ work required the use
of her advanced knowledge.
Based on her job duties, the lack of close supervision, and
the wide discretion exercised by Williams, the district court
rejected Williams’ argument that she performed mainly clerical
tasks, noting that “even though Williams does not have ultimate
decision-making power as to an injured employee’s treatment or
care
plan,
she
still
uses
her
discretion
and
judgment
to
evaluate cases and make recommendations for future courses of
action, much like a licensed RN engaged in direct patient care.”
(J.A. 78).
The district court also rejected Williams’ argument
that because her status reports are prepared using templates,
she is nothing more than a “mere scribe.”
(J.A. 79).
The
district court noted that report preparation only accounted for
a small part of Williams’ job duties, and, in any event, the
preparation of these reports required the use of her advanced
nursing knowledge.
13
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 14 of 20
The district court entered judgment in favor of Genex on
the same day it issued its memorandum opinion.
Following the
entry of judgment, Williams noted a timely appeal.
II
A
Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the district court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.
R.
Civ.
district
P.
court
56(a).
must
view
In
making
the
that
evidence
determination,
in
the
light
the
most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct.
1861, 1866 (2014).
Although we view all the underlying facts and inferences in
the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,
the
nonmoving
party
nonetheless
must
offer
some
“concrete
evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in
his [or her] favor.”
242, 256 (1986).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
Consequently, summary judgment is appropriate
when the nonmoving party has the burden of proof on an essential
element of her case and does not make, after adequate time for
discovery,
a
showing
sufficient
to
establish
that
element.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).
14
The
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 15 of 20
nonmoving party must satisfy this burden of proof by offering
more
than
position.
a
mere
“scintilla
of
evidence”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
summary judgment de novo.
in
support
of
her
We review the grant of
Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531
(4th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Whether
an
requirements
employee
is
a
is
mixed
exempt
question
from
of
the
law
FLSA’s
and
fact;
overtime
“[t]he
question of how the [employees] spent their working time . . .
is a question of fact.
The question whether their particular
activities excluded them from the overtime benefits of the FLSA
is a question of law.”
Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington,
475 U.S. 709, 714 (1986); see also Walton v. Greenbrier Ford,
Inc., 370 F.3d 446, 450 (4th Cir. 2004) (“The determination of
whether an employee falls within the scope of a FLSA exemption
is ultimately a legal question.”).
An employer must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that an employee qualifies for
exemption.
Shockley v. City of Newport News, 997 F.2d 18, 21
(4th Cir. 1993).
B
Genex
argues
that
Williams
is
not
entitled
to
overtime
compensation because, based on the undisputed facts concerning
her job responsibilities, her position was properly classified
as
exempt
under
specifically,
the
Genex
learned
claims
professional
that
15
Williams
exemption.
exercises
More
discretion
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 16 of 20
and judgment every day, is not closely monitored or supervised,
and
most
importantly,
predominately
uses
her
RN
skills
on
a
daily basis in the performance of her duties.
In response, Williams claims that the learned professional
exemption
does
not
apply
and
that,
at
a
minimum,
factual
disputes preclude entry of summary judgment in Genex’s favor.
From Williams’ point of view, her duties consist of nothing more
than
clerical,
specifically,
nondiscretionary,
she
claims
that
and
her
routine
primary
duty
work.
is
More
not
the
performance of exempt work; rather she claims that: (1) she is a
mere “liaison between employer and doctor to keep the doctor
appraised on what the physical requirements the claimant’s job
entails,”
(Appellant’s
Br.
at
36);
(2)
that
she
is
“nothing more than a scribe relaying information back to the
adjustors,” id. at 38; and (3) that any “lay person” can perform
the job of FMCM.
At bottom, Williams posits that, even if she
uses her advanced knowledge in the performance of her duties on
occasion, she does so substantially less than the 50 percent
threshold set forth in § 541.700(b).
In
our
view,
the
district
court
did
not
err
when
it
concluded that Williams’ primary duty involved the performance
of exempt work.
First off, Williams’ own description of her
core job responsibilities fatally undermines her argument that
her
work
involves
primarily
clerical,
16
nondiscretionary,
and
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
routine work.
Pg: 17 of 20
On her resume, Williams describes her job as
follows:
Serve as case manager for multidisciplinary files
assessing patient needs, designing research-driven
life care plans, and coordinating [the] delivery of
care.
Oversee medical record reviews, extensive
client interview process, collaboration with the
treatment team, data analysis, and research to project
current and long-term medical needs and their economic
impact.
Coordinating case management initiatives in
concert with providers.
Develop strong professional
relationships
through
proactive
communication
and
coalition-building, facilitating life care planning,
trust management, litigation support.
(J.A. 340).
This description conflicts with the labels Williams
applies to her job duties in the context of this litigation,
namely that her work is clerical, nondiscretionary, and routine.
It
is
well-settled
that
a
plaintiff
may
not
judgment by submitting contradictory evidence.
avoid
summary
See Barwick v.
Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 960 (4th Cir. 1984) (“A genuine
issue of material fact is not created where the only issue of
fact is to determine which of the two conflicting versions of
the
plaintiff’s
testimony
is
correct.”).
To
do
so
“would
greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure
for
screening
out
sham
issues
of
fact.”
Id.
(citation
and
internal quotation marks omitted).
Notwithstanding
this
ploy,
the
record
evidence
submitted
demonstrates beyond question that Williams regularly uses her
skills, training, and knowledge as an RN to perform her duties
17
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
as an FMCM.
who
are
See 29 C.F.R. § 541.301(e)(2) (“Registered nurses
registered
generally
Pg: 18 of 20
meet
professional
by
the
the
appropriate
duties
State
requirements
exemption.”).
Consistent
examining
for
with
the
her
board
learned
core
job
responsibilities which focus on the use of her “clinical/nursing
skills,” (J.A. 683), Williams develops individual care plans by
reviewing injured workers’ medical records and interviewing such
workers
about
their
medical
conditions
and
recovery.
The
development of these care plans must be consistent with clinical
criteria and follow current nursing practices in Maryland.
also
coordinates
medical
care
and
communicates
with
She
medical
providers, insurers, employers, and attorneys to assess whether
injured workers are receiving appropriate care.
She educates
injured workers on their disabilities and answers any questions
they may have in an effort to facilitate their return to work.
In
the
exercise
of
her
discretion
and
judgment,
she
recommendations concerning alternate forms of treatment.
makes
In her
periodic reports on injured workers, she assesses and analyzes
the
injured
workers’
conditions,
commentary and suggestions.
but
also
provides
her
Her training and experience as an
RN is indispensable in the performance of these duties.
other
words,
responsibilities,
the
record
performed
own
makes
with
clear
little
that
or
In
Williams’
no
direct
supervision, involve the consistent exercise of discretion and
18
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 19 of 20
judgment as well as the use of her advanced nursing knowledge to
“analyze, interpret or make deductions from varying facts or
circumstances.”
29 C.F.R. § 541.301(b).
Sensing that her work involves the use of her RN skills,
Williams points us to the 50 percent threshold in § 541.700(b),
suggesting that she needs to spend at least 50 percent of her
time doing exempt work to qualify for the learned professional
exemption.
Such
is
not
the
case.
The
amount
of
time
an
employee spends on exempt work is not dispositive of whether the
employee is a learned professional.
alone,
section
however,
requires
is
not
that
the
exempt
sole
See id. § 541.700(b) (“Time
test,
employees
and
nothing
spend
percent of their time performing exempt work.”).
more
in
than
this
50
And even if
some of her job duties fell under the rubric of nonexempt work,
such job duties only amounted to a small portion of her overall
job duties, as the record reflects that the vast majority of her
work involved the use and application of her RN skills.
We also note that Williams’ high salary, over $80,000.00 in
the two years preceding this litigation, itself creates doubt as
to whether she falls within the FLSA’s intended protected class.
We have previously emphasized that, “[a]lthough salary alone is
not dispositive under the FLSA, . . . the FLSA was meant to
protect low paid rank and file employees.”
Darveau v. Detecon,
Inc., 515 F.3d 334, 338 (4th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal
19
Appeal: 14-1966
Doc: 36
Filed: 12/18/2015
Pg: 20 of 20
quotation marks omitted); see also Marshall v. Western Union
Tel. Co., 621 F.2d 1246, 1251 (3d Cir. 1980) (noting that the
FLSA was meant to protect low paid “rank and file” employees,
not higher salaried managerial and administrative employees who
are “seldom the victims of substandard working conditions and
low wages.”).
Indeed, the FLSA’s implementing regulations state
that “[a] high level of compensation is a strong indicator of an
employee’s exempt status.”
In
sum,
Williams
has
29 C.F.R. § 541.601(c).
failed
to
come
forward
with
any
persuasive evidence that Genex violated the FLSA by classifying
her
primary
duty
as
professional.
Thus,
we
conclude
that
Williams is exempt from the mandatory overtime provisions of the
FLSA.
III
For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of the district
court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
20
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?