Florentino Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Marketing
720 F.3d 577
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Meza was a route salesman for IMM from June 2010 to July 2011, earning a $300 weekly salary plus commissions and bonuses.
- IMM classified Meza as an outside salesman exempt from FLSA overtime and minimum wage; Meza disputed this and filed a FLSA claim.
- Meza’s duties included stocking shelves, restocking, merchandising, soliciting orders, promoting products, and visiting stores along a fixed route.
- Meza received sales training, shadowing, and attended weekly sales meetings; warehouse drivers performed non-sales deliveries and were paid minimum wage and overtime.
- The district court granted summary judgment for IMM, holding that Meza fit the outside salesman exemption; Meza appealed.
- The court analyzed the DOL regulations and several controlling cases to determine whether Meza’s primary duty was sales.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meza is exempt as an outside salesman under the FLSA | Meza argues he performed primarily sales and sales-related duties. | IMM contends Meza’s duties were primarily delivery and incidental to sales, satisfying the exemption. | Exemption applies; Meza is more akin to an outside salesman than a deliveryman. |
| What factors govern whether a route driver qualifies as outside sales exempt | Factors support Meza as primarily selling and obtaining orders. | Most factors point to IMM, with Meza’s duties largely sales-related but also delivery-focused. | Majority of applicable factors favor IMM; exemption supported. |
| Do DOL examples and case law support IMM's exemption defense | Skipper and other authorities show non-exempt delivery emphasis; Christopher clarifies context. | The cited examples align with Meza’s duties; other cases are distinguishable. | DOL examples and precedent support exemption for Meza. |
| What is the proper standard of review and burden of proof in exemption determination | Meza challenges summary judgment and argues necessity of factual disputes. | Employer bears burden to show exemption by a preponderance of the evidence. | Summary judgment affirmed; IMM proved exemption by preponderance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 118 F.2d 202 (10th Cir. 1941) (outside salesman exemption analyzed for drivers who primarily sell away from employer)
- Hodgson v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Co., 346 F. Supp. 1102 (M.D.N.C. 1972) (deliverymen deemed exempt when primarily salesmen and away from employer)
- Skipper v. Superior Dairies, Inc., 512 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1975) (outside salesman exemption defeated where employee performed delivery with no face-to-face negotiation)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 132 S. Ct. 2156 (2012) (pharmaceutical sales representatives; context of outside sales exemption)
- Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) (FLSA foundational discussion on wages and hours)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974) (employer burden to prove exemption applicability)
- Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (1960) (preponderance of the evidence standard for exemptions)
- Lederman v. Frontier Fire Prot., Inc., 685 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2012) (exemption analysis framework and factor-based evaluation)