11 F. Supp. 3d 772
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Shannon King was a longtime team leader (supervisor) at Stevenson Beer Distributing (SBD), earning $900/week and supervising ~7–13 employees on sales teams that serviced multiple routes.
- King performed managerial tasks: assigning daily work, coaching via "ride withs," inspecting and documenting salesmen performance (used for bonuses), training, scheduling, and monitoring route operations; he was paid a salary and worked >40 hours/week.
- In late 2010 SBD discovered King attempted to redistribute expired product in violation of company/Anheuser-Busch policy; SBD deducted costs and terminated him on Dec. 31, 2010.
- King sued under the FLSA (unpaid overtime; alleged willful misclassification), the ADEA, and Texas labor law (TCHRA) for age discrimination; he moved for partial summary judgment on FLSA; defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. King was permitted to amend to pursue FLSA individually.
- The court found disputed factual permutations but resolved essential legal issues on the record: it held King was exempt from FLSA overtime under the executive exemption and granted summary judgment for defendants on the FLSA claim and on King’s age-discrimination claims (ADEA/TCHRA).
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SBD is liable under the FLSA for unpaid overtime (classification/exemptions) | King: he was misclassified; he performed nonexempt duties and worked >40 hrs; exemption does not apply. | SBD: King met executive exemption (salary, managed a recognized subdivision, directed ≥2 employees, recommendations carried weight); alternatively administrative/outside sales or combination exemptions. | Held: Executive exemption applies as a matter of law; King’s FLSA overtime claim denied. |
| Whether any FLSA violation was willful (limitations) | King: alleged willfulness to extend statute to 3 years. | SBD: no willfulness if exemption applies; burden on plaintiff to show willfulness. | Held: Court decided exemption disposes of claim; did not find plaintiff’s willfulness showing sufficient. |
| Whether King can establish age discrimination (ADEA/TCHRA) via disparate treatment | King: younger employees who repackaged/redistributed expired product were treated more favorably (comparators Jimmy Clegg, Quinton Hollis). | SBD: comparators not "nearly identical" (different positions, supervisors, or different misconduct known to decisionmakers); legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (policy violation) for termination. | Held: King failed to present valid similarly situated comparators or evidence of pretext; summary judgment for defendants on ADEA/TCHRA. |
| Whether King may proceed collectively under FLSA | King moved to remove collective allegations and proceed individually. | — | Held: Court granted leave to amend; considered summary judgment issues on the FAC (individual claim). |
Key Cases Cited
- Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Mktg., Inc., 720 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2013) (FLSA purpose and outside-sales context)
- Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1990) (factors for determining primary duty and managerial status)
- Lott v. Howard Wilson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 203 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2000) (exemption analysis is ultimately a question of law)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (ultimate burden of persuasion remains with plaintiff)