Calderon v. GEICO General Insurance
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169285
D. Maryland2012Background
- Plaintiffs, current and former GEICO Security Investigators, allege overtime under FLSA was withheld due to improper exempt status.
- Plaintiffs sought Conditional Certification and Judicial Notice under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); the court granted, authorizing notice to opt-ins.
- An Amended Complaint added an individual New York state-law overtime claim by opt-in Plaintiff Tom Fitzgerald, followed by a Rule 23 class certification motion.
- The court granted the second amended complaint and GEICO answered; cross-motions for summary judgment were filed in 2012.
- Investigators work in GEICO’s SIU within the Claims Department; they investigate potentially fraudulent claims under prescribed procedures.
- GEICO contends Investigators are administrative-exempt; Plaintiffs contend Investigators perform production-like investigative work not directly related to management.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Investigators fall within the FLSA administrative exemption | Investigators perform administrative tasks directly related to managing GEICO’s operations. | Investigators perform production-type investigative work that is not administrative. | Administrative exemption not met; burden not satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Whether Investigators exercise discretion and independent judgment regarding matters of significance | Investigators exercise discretion in investigations that affect claims and outcomes. | Discretion is limited to applying established procedures and does not involve matters of significance. | Discretion exercised does not reach matters of significance; fails third element of exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Desmond v. PNGI Charles Town Gaming, L.L.C., 564 F.3d 688 (4th Cir.2009) (exemption narrowly construed; production vs. administrative analysis)
- Foster v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 695 F.Supp.2d 748 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (administrative-production dichotomy not decisive for investigators)
- Adams v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 536 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (OPM guidance on administrative-exemption; significant discretion not shown)
- Bothell v. Phase Metrics, Inc., 299 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir.2002) (administrative exemption framework; dichotomy not dispositive)
- Schaefer v. Ind. Mich. Power Co., 358 F.3d 394 (6th Cir.2004) (limitations of administrative-production dichotomy in exemptions)