970 F. Supp. 2d 1206
D. Colo.2013Background
- Plaintiff was hired in 2005 as a Technology/Multimedia Development Editor and later became Multimedia Experience Manager; he was paid a salary and classified exempt.
- Plaintiff’s duties included coordinating ebook and mobile app development, quality control of digital products, Tier II/III technical support, training employees, advising business units on technology, and assisting with event multimedia setups.
- Plaintiff received progressive discipline (written warning Dec. 2011; final written warning Apr. 2012) for performance and interpersonal issues and was told vacation must be approved in advance.
- Plaintiff sent an office-wide email on Nov. 19, 2012 saying he would be out for Thanksgiving and did not notify his supervisor in advance or arrange coverage for a Nov. 20 event; he did not set up AV for that meeting.
- Plaintiff filed this FLSA overtime suit on Aug. 1, 2012 and later amended to add a retaliation claim; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing administrative and computer-professional exemptions and that termination was for legitimate nonretaliatory reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff is exempt under FLSA administrative exemption | Plaintiff says primary duties were non-exempt hands-on/AV and routine support work | Defendant says primary duties were non-manual, business-related (apps/ebooks, product shaping, training, quality control) and involved discretion | Court: Administrative exemption applies; Plaintiff was properly classified exempt |
| Whether Plaintiff is exempt under the computer-professional exemption | Plaintiff contends duties do not fit the specialized computer-employee duties | Defendant contends app/ebook development and technical problem solving qualify | Court: Declined to reach after finding administrative exemption dispositive |
| Whether termination was retaliation for filing FLSA suit | Plaintiff argues temporal proximity and disputed facts create inference of retaliation | Defendant says termination followed prior discipline and failure to follow call-in/vacation policy and failure to cover event | Court: Plaintiff failed to show causal connection and, alternatively, failed to show pretext; retaliation claim fails |
| Whether portions of Plaintiff's affidavit/discovery responses create genuine disputes | Plaintiff relies on post-deposition affidavit and contests facts; also failed to respond to Requests for Admission | Defendant says affidavit contradicts prior deposition (sham) and RFAs are deemed admitted | Court: Treated the affidavit as a sham where it contradicted deposition; deemed RFAs admitted where unanswered |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and materiality standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Maestas v. Day & Zimmerman, LLC, 664 F.3d 822 (primary-duty analysis for exemptions)
- Archuleta v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 543 F.3d 1226 (burden on employer to prove exemption)
- Law Co., Inc. v. Mohawk Constr. & Supply Co., Inc., 577 F.3d 1164 (sham affidavit doctrine)
- Ralston v. Smith & Nephew-Richards, Inc., 275 F.3d 965 (sham affidavit discussion)
- Bones v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 366 F.3d 869 (conclusory statements insufficient at summary judgment)
- Pacheco v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 365 F.3d 1199 (FLSA retaliation analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)
- Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321 (summary judgment evidentiary burdens)