294 F.R.D. 101
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiff Darrick Hundt worked as a DirectSat warehouse manager (June 2007–Jan 2008); DirectSat treated him and other managers/supervisors as exempt and did not pay overtime. 18 opt‑in plaintiffs initially joined a conditionally certified FLSA collective.
- Opt‑ins held varied titles (warehouse manager/supervisor, project/field/service manager) and worked at different warehouses with different responsibilities.
- Disputed duties included whether individuals set schedules, interviewed/hired, disciplined, trained, or supervised two or more employees; some opt‑ins performed those duties, others did not.
- Hundt’s duties at Bolingbrook: managed inventory/distribution, allocated equipment using discretion, directed one assistant for ~3 months, did some manual labor; earned at least $455/week and regularly worked >40 hours.
- Defendants moved to decertify the collective and for summary judgment on Hundt’s FLSA claim; Hundt moved for summary judgment denying applicability of executive, administrative, and combination exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the collective should remain certified (similarly situated) | Opt‑ins share a common misclassification; manual labor predominates so exemptions don't apply uniformly | Job duties vary materially by location and individual; exemptions require individualized factual inquiries | Decertified: plaintiffs are not similarly situated; case reverts to Hundt individually |
| Whether Hundt is exempt under the executive exemption | Hundt did not customarily/regularly direct ≥2 employees | Hundt supervised warehouse staff and technicians, so executive exemption applies | Executive exemption not established: defendants failed to show Hundt directed ≥2 employees regularly |
| Whether Hundt is exempt under the administrative exemption | Hundt performed primarily manual labor (non‑exempt); did not exercise sufficient discretion | Hundt’s primary duty was running the warehouse (ancillary to core business) and he exercised discretion in allocating inventory | Administrative exemption applies: Hundt’s duties were managerial/administrative and he exercised discretion; summary judgment for defendants on FLSA claim |
| Whether combination (hybrid) exemption applies | Hundt performed no executive/administrative duties that could combine to satisfy primary‑duty test | Combination could apply if duties across exemptions together meet primary duty | Combination exemption not needed/applicable because Hundt qualified under administrative exemption and did not perform executive duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., 679 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (exemption analysis is fact‑intensive and duties determine exemption status)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (nonexempt work does not automatically preclude an exemption if primary duty remains management)
- Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982) (the person in charge of a facility may have management as primary duty despite performing much nonexempt work)
- Murray v. Stuckey’s Inc., 939 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1991) (affirming management as primary duty for the person in charge of a facility)
- Alvarez v. City of Chicago, 605 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2010) (when a collective is decertified, the case reverts to individual actions)