In Re Family Dollar FLSA Litigation
637 F.3d 508
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- Grace was a Family Dollar store manager earning salary and bonus, working 50–65 hours weekly, arguing she performed mostly nonexecutive duties and thus entitled to overtime under §207(a)(1) but not exempt under §213(a)(1).
- Family Dollar treated store managers as executives exempt from overtime since longstanding policy; Grace claimed the exemption did not apply due to primarily nonmanagerial tasks.
- Record showed Grace had authority over hiring, training, scheduling, discipline, inventory, and finances, yet spent substantial time performing nonexecutive tasks (unloading freight, stocking, cashiering, cleaning).
- District court granted summary judgment for Family Dollar, holding Grace’s primary duty was management, thus she was exempt; the action involved a certified/collective action aspect for others similarly situated.
- Grace sought to represent others under 29 U.S.C. §216(b); district court denied conditional certification, later granting final summary judgment; Fourth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Grace an executive exempt under FLSA | Grace primarily nonexempt | Grace performed essential managerial duties | Grace is an exempt executive; summary judgment proper |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on collective action status | Similar employees exist | Variations among stores preclude class-wide commonality | Affirmed; court did not need to decide certification given merits ruling |
| Whether pre- and post-2004 regulations affect Grace’s exemption | Different regulations apply to her period | Regulatory framework does not change outcome | Both regimes align to support exemption; no error in applying factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (collective action and exemptions reviewed; evidence supports overtime claim where applicable)
- Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1984) (summary judgment not defeated by sham affidavits; rely on deposition testimony)
- Thomas v. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, 506 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007) (time factor not sole determinant; management can coexist with nonexempt tasks)