492 F.Supp.3d 87
E.D.N.Y2020Background
- Target classifies Executive Team Leaders (ETLs) as exempt employees and requires standardized training (six-week "Business College" plus in-store training) and a Handbook stating exempt employees must spend >50% of time on managerial duties.
- Plaintiff Priscilla Jibowu worked as an ETL (Replenishment and Sales Floor) in Target stores (Chicago and Brooklyn) from 2014–2017 and alleges she spent most time on nonexempt, manual tasks (stocking, unloading, cashiering) while classified as exempt.
- Defendant submitted performance reviews, emails, and declarations from supervisors/colleagues asserting Plaintiff performed managerial duties, supervised teams, completed reviews, and had discretion in her department.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the FLSA/NYLL/IMWL executive exemption applied; Plaintiff opposed, citing factual disputes about actual duties, supervision, staffing, and authority.
- Plaintiff and seven opt-in ETLs moved for conditional certification of a nationwide FLSA collective; discovery proceeded and the Court applied a modest-plus standard given extensive discovery.
- Court denied summary judgment on executive-exemption grounds (genuine disputes on primary-duty, supervision, and weight of recommendations), dismissed Plaintiff's IWPCA claim, and conditionally certified a limited FLSA collective covering ETLs at specific store locations in CA, IL, NY, OH, OK, PA, and TX (June 28, 2014–present), with instructions on notice and limited contact-data production and equitable tolling from the complaint filing date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ETL roles meet FLSA bona fide executive exemption (primary duty = management) | Jibowu: actual day-to-day work was primarily nonmanagerial (stocking, unloading), so exemption inapplicable | Target: job descriptions, Handbook, training, reviews, and supervisor declarations show managerial primary duty | Denied summary judgment — genuine disputes of material fact on primary-duty factors preclude a legal ruling for Target |
| Whether Plaintiff customarily and regularly directed 2+ employees | Jibowu: often understaffed; team members "knew what to do"; at times supervised <2 people | Target: declarations and emails show Plaintiff directed teams, LOD duties, and supervised team leaders | Denied summary judgment — factual conflict over whether she regularly supervised two+ employees |
| Whether Plaintiff's personnel recommendations carried "particular weight" (hiring/firing/promotions) | Jibowu: recommendations were pro forma and STL/HR retained final authority | Target: evidence that Plaintiff made and that supervisors relied on recommendations a majority of the time | Denied summary judgment — weight of recommendations disputed; not resolved as a matter of law |
| Conditional certification scope, tolling, and contact data for notice | Plaintiffs: nationwide ETL collective; toll back 3 years to complaint date; request names, addresses, phones, emails, and SSNs for undeliverables | Target: nationwide class unsupported; oppose broad tolling and disclosure of SSNs; argue local variation explains alleged nonexempt work | Court conditionally certified a geographically limited collective (stores where plaintiffs/opt-ins worked in CA, IL, NY, OH, OK, PA, TX, 6/28/2014–present); equitably tolled statute from complaint filing; ordered limited contact data (no SSNs, mail addresses to be handled more narrowly) and directed parties to meet-and-confer on notice text |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard — "genuine dispute" and reasonable jury inquiry)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment and nonmovant’s need to present evidence)
- Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134 (2018) (interpretation of FLSA exemptions and guidance on exemption analysis)
- Flood v. Just Energy Mktg. Corp., 904 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2018) (employer bears burden to establish FLSA exemption)
- Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2020) (distinguishing step-one/step-two collective inquiries; mixed law-and-fact questions on exemptions)
- Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (two-step FLSA collective-certification framework and modest factual showing at step one)
- Pippins v. KPMG, LLP, 759 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (primary-duty inquiry involves factual determination of how employees spent time)
- Karropoulos v. Soup du Jour, Ltd., 128 F. Supp. 3d 518 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (summary judgment on executive exemption appropriate only when all factors undisputed)
- Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 3d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (salary comparators and exemption analysis)
- Costello v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D. Conn. 2013) (denying summary judgment where managerial duties and overlap with nonexempt tasks raised factual disputes)