Edwards et al v. KB Home
Filing
256
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting on the administrative exemption and the highly compensated exemption in re: 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment With Respect to the Retail Sales Exemption, Highly Compensated Exemption and Administrative Exemption (Signed by Judge Gregg Costa) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
KIP EDWARDS, et al,
November 10, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-240
§
§
§
§
Plaintiffs,
VS.
KB HOME, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The Plaintiffs in this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action are
former home salespersons who worked for Defendant KB Home. It is undisputed
that Plaintiffs were paid in commissions that did not provide additional
compensation for any overtime worked. The central dispute is whether Plaintiffs
were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirement. KB Home asserts that the
salespersons are not owed overtime wages because Plaintiffs fall within several
FLSA exemptions; the (1) outside sales exemption; (2) the retail sales exemption;
(3) the administrative exemption; and (4) the highly compensated exemption.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the retail sales exemption, the
administrative exemption, and the highly compensated exemption. The Plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment on the administrative exemption and the highly
compensated exemption is GRANTED. The Court does not decide the retail sales
exemption motion at this time.
1/7
I.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs were employed as “Sales Counselors” who sold new homes. Sales
Counselors were paid solely on a commission basis, rather than a fixed salary.
Docket Entry 223–G at 8. A Sales Counselor who did not sell a home during a pay
period was paid a “draw” against future commissions. 1 Docket Entry 206–6 at 16.
For every pay period, a Sales Counselor’s paycheck would thus reflect either the
draw or a commission payment that exceeded the draw. Docket Entry 223–C at 14.
If a Sales Counselor was unsuccessful in selling homes for a period of time
and became indebted to KB Home because of draws that had not been credited
against commissions, then KB Home would reduce or eliminate the employee’s
draw amount, thereby reducing the paycheck. Docket Entry 231–12; 231–13.
Similarly, if an employee was terminated and had a draw backlog, KB Home had
the right, through their employment agreement, to demand that the outstanding draw
amounts be repaid to KB Home. Docket Entry 206–6 at 4.
II.
Standard of Review
When a party moves for summary judgment, the reviewing court shall grant
the motion “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
1
The employment agreement fixes the default draw amount at $2,500. Docket Entry 206–6 at
16. But a Sales Counselor could have her draw reduced because of poor sales performance when
the draw balance exceeds a set amount. Id. In one instance, KB Home halved several employees
draw payments when they had excessive draw balances, which resulted from insufficient
commissions. Docket Entry 231–12 at 1.
2/7
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
All reasonable doubts on questions of fact must be resolved in favor of the party
opposing summary judgment. See Evans v. City of Houston, 246 F.3d 344, 348 (5th
Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). KB Home bears the burden of proof on its affirmative
defenses, including the FLSA exemptions. See Singer v. City of Waco, Tex., 324
F.3d 813, 820 (5th Cir. 2003) (employer bears the burden of demonstrating that an
employee is exempt).
III.
The “Salary Basis” Test
Both the highly compensated exemption and the administrative exemption
require an employer to meet the “salary basis” test, which requires that employees
earn more than $455 per week. 29 C.F.R. § 541.601; Id. § 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a).
Department of Labor regulations explain the types of compensation
arrangements that meet this requirement.
Id. § 541.604.
One means of
compensation is payment on a “salary basis.” Id. § 541.602(a). An employee is paid
on a salary basis “if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly,
or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the
employee's compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction because of
variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.” Id. This minimum
payment must be made “free and clear,” meaning “finally and unconditionally.” 29
C.F.R. § 531.35. So long as “the employment arrangement . . . includes a guarantee
3/7
of at least the minimum weekly-required amount paid on a salary basis,” the
employer may also provide the employee with “additional compensation,” including
commission on sales. 29 U.S.C. § 541.604(a) (emphasis added).
KB Home argues that their sales counselors received above the minimum
weekly amount of $455 in draws, and any fluctuation in the amount paid that is
above the minimum amount required is permissible under the regulations. It relies
on the Department of Labor’s analysis of a financial services company’s
compensation system that adjusted commissions for cancelled trades, trader errors,
and other trading-related losses. Dep’t of Labor, Opinion Letter, FLSA2006–43
(Nov. 27, 2006). Notably, however, the employees described in that latter were
guaranteed a salary of at least $455 a week, regardless of how much they received
through the commissions that were subject to adjustment. Id. The Department
emphasized that “[w]hat matters is that the employee receives no less than the
weekly-required amount as a guaranteed salary constituting all or part of total
compensation, which amount is not subject to reduction due to the quality or quantity
of the work performed, and that the employee is never required to repay any portion
of that salary even if the employee fails to earn sufficient commissions or fees.” Id.
KB Home’s draw system is different from the compensation plan described
in the 2006 DOL letter and does what the letter says is impermissible. Unlike the
brokers who were paid commissions “in addition to the guaranteed salary amount,”
4/7
id. at 2; see also id. (noting that the “minimum salary/draw” is “coupled with an
added component” of either commissions or fees), the KB Sales Counselors are paid
entirely on commissions. 2 Their draw is just that, a draw against future commissions
and not a separate guaranteed weekly payment. Docket Entry 231–7 at 3. This pure
draw system means that employees are not being paid any amounts for certain pay
periods. If a Sales Counselor goes two months without a sale and then sells five
homes during the third month, then she is only being compensated for the third
month with amounts received from the first two months being drawn against the
third month’s commissions. This contrasts with the situation in the 2006 DOL letter
when the employee is receiving guaranteed pay all three months that is never
credited against future commissions (she would just receive higher pay during the
third month via the “additional” commissions received for sales that month).
In addition, the KB Home draw can be reduced based on sales performance.
Docket Entry 223–G at 8. In one instance, five employees had their draw payments
halved because they had “excessive draw balances” as the result of inadequate sales.
Docket Entry 231–12 at 1. Another employee’s draw was completely eliminated.
2
KB Home repeatedly tries to fit its system within that described in the 2006 letter by stating
that it paid “a combination of draw payments and commissions.” There was a combination in
the sense that sometimes an employee would receive a draw and other times a commission
(depending on whether sales were made during the pay period). But a “combination” system is
different from a system in which the commissions are paid in addition to the weekly payment
amounts. The 2006 letter makes clear that it was addressing this latter scenario involving
additional commissions. The which is also the line the DOL regulation draws. See 29 C.F.R. §
541.604(a).
5/7
Docket Entry 231–13.
KB Home’s corporate representative conceded that the draw was a loan,
because it was an advance against commissions that had to be repaid through future
commissions. Id. Also damaging to KB Home’s position is its employment
agreement which states that if an employee is terminated, she can be asked to repay
the draw. Docket Entry 206–6 at 4. KB Home argues that Plaintiffs have presented
no evidence showing that an employee was in fact paid less than $455 a week. But
in asserting an affirmative defense, KB Home bears the burden of producing some
evidence in support of its position at the summary judgment stage.
More
fundamentally, what matters is whether the compensation system itself guarantees a
minimum salary paid to employees. For example, even if every Sales Counselors
sold two homes a week and thus made far in excess of the draw, that would not
change the fact that the system does not guarantee any salary. The undisputed
descriptions of KB Home’s draw and compensation system demonstrate that it does
not guarantee a “free and clear” minimum salary. Courts have held that similar draw
payment systems do not meet the “salary basis test.” See Bowman v. Builder's
Cabinet Supply Co., 2006 WL 2460817, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 2006) (finding the
“salary basis test” unsatisfied when plaintiff’s draw amount was contingent on her
monthly sales and could be reduced or eliminated with poor performance); Takacs
v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1110 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (rejecting
6/7
a draw system that was not paid “free and clear” when deficits in earned
commissions are carried forward).
IV.
Conclusion
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No.
206) on the administrative exemption and the highly compensated exemption are
GRANTED.
SIGNED this 10th day of November, 2015.
___________________________________
Gregg Costa
United States Circuit Judge *
Sitting by Designation
7/7
*
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?