Learing v. Anthem Companies, Inc., The, 795 F.Supp.3d 1118

Christine Learing, a registered nurse, worked for Anthem in the Nurse Medical Management (NMM) role, primarily conducting utilization (medical necessity) reviews per detailed company processes and guidelines.
Learing sued Anthem, alleging that she and other similarly situated NMMs were misclassified as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA and Minnesota law, seeking unpaid overtime wages.
Anthem raised FLSA learned professional and administrative exemption defenses, arguing NMMs are properly classified as exempt; Learing moved for partial summary judgment on these defenses.
The court initially applied a heightened burden ("plainly and unmistakably" standard) in granting partial summary judgment for Learing, holding the exemptions inapplicable.
After the Supreme Court's E.M.D. Sales decision clarified that the correct burden is preponderance of the evidence (not a heightened standard), Anthem sought reconsideration of the court's prior order.
On reconsideration, the court used the new evidentiary standard, finding fact issues preclude summary judgment on the learned professional exemption, but reaffirmed that the administrative exemption does not apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Correct evidentiary standard for FLSA exemptions	Should remain "plainly and unmistakably"/heightened; relates to statutory interpretation not burden of proof	Must be preponderance of the evidence per Supreme Court; “plainly and unmistakably” is improper heightened standard	Preponderance of the evidence applies; "plainly and unmistakably" dropped
Does learned professional exemption apply to NMMs?	NMMs’ work is routine, strictly guided, and requires limited discretion; does not satisfy "advanced knowledge" test	NMMs use clinical judgment and RN experience; advanced knowledge and discretion exercised regularly	Fact issues exist; summary judgment denied for both parties, exemption to be tried
Does administrative exemption apply to NMMs?	NMMs’ primary duty not related to management/business operations	Administrative exemption should apply	Court reaffirms administrative exemption does not apply; Anthem conceded this at argument
Was prior summary judgment order legally correct before E.M.D. Sales?	Yes, based on then-existing Eighth Circuit law	No, E.M.D. Sales is change in controlling law	Prior order was not legal error at the time, but new law requires modification

Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 584 U.S. 79 (fair reading of FLSA exemptions, not narrow construction)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard must be viewed through correct evidentiary burden)
Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (origin of "plainly and unmistakably" language)
SPV-LS, LLC v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 1106 (district court discretion in reconsideration)
Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., 679 F.3d 560 (FLSA exemption analysis is fact-intensive)
Grage v. N. States Power Co.-Minn., 813 F.3d 1051 (distinction between fact and law in FLSA exemption)