128 F. Supp. 3d 518
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Emanuel Karropoulos worked as executive chef at Bistro 44 from Jan. 2010 to Apr. 30, 2013 and was paid a weekly salary (checks of $900 and cash supplements initially, later $1,400 checks for a period).
- Plaintiff sues under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting multiple exemptions to overtime.
- Central factual disputes concern (a) how much time Karropoulos spent cooking versus performing managerial/creative/administrative tasks, and (b) the extent of his authority over hiring, firing, scheduling, ordering, and menu creation.
- Payroll evidence shows variation in pay method and a few instances of paycheck endorsement/deductions; parties dispute whether deductions reflect an ‘‘actual practice’’ inconsistent with a salary basis.
- The court found sufficient evidence that Karropoulos met the salary-basis threshold but concluded genuine disputes of material fact remain on the remaining elements of each asserted exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive exemption: whether primary duty is management and directed ≥2 employees and hiring/firing authority | Karropoulos primarily cooked on the line (95%); had limited hiring/firing and supervision | He had managerial duties: created menu, ran staff meetings, set schedules, supervised kitchen staff | Genuine disputes of material fact on primary-duty, supervision, and hiring/firing; summary judgment denied |
| Creative professional exemption: whether primary duty involved invention, originality, or talent (‘‘truly original chef’’) | His primary duty was routine cooking; menu control shared and owner had significant input | He regularly created/edited menu items and Bistro 44 had high-end recognition (Zagat) | Material disputes about whether menu-creation was his primary duty and whether the restaurant was ‘‘gourmet’’; summary judgment denied |
| Learned professional exemption: whether work is predominantly intellectual in a learned field (four-year degree or equivalent experience) | He has a 2‑year ACI degree and performed routine cooking, not advanced intellectual work | Prior executive-chef positions and experience substitute for a four-year culinary degree | Factual dispute over whether his duties were predominantly intellectual and whether experience suffices; summary judgment denied |
| Administrative exemption: whether primary duty was non‑manual work related to management/business operations and involved discretion/judgment | His primary duty was cooking, not business/office work; limited independent discretion | He performed work related to management/operations and exercised discretion on menu/staffing | Disputed whether duties related to business operations and whether he exercised requisite discretion; summary judgment denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment—genuine dispute standard)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretation deference principles)
- Bilyou v. Dutchess Beer Distributors, Inc., 300 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2002) (employer bears burden on FLSA exemptions)
- Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (primary-duty analysis factors)
- Pippins v. KPMG, LLP, 759 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2014) (exemption as mixed question of law and fact)