Lederman v. Frontier Fire Protection, Inc.
685 F.3d 1151
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lederman sued Frontier Fire Protection for unpaid overtime under the FLSA; Frontier asserted an exemption defense as an outside salesman.
- Lederman's trial evidence was mixed on time spent in office vs. away from business and on his authority to finalize sales.
- Frontier contended Lederman’s primary duty involved outside sales and orders; Lederman argued exemption did not apply or was not plainly and unmistakably met.
- The district court gave Lederman's proposed instruction, stating the employer bears the burden to prove the exemption and used the phrase 'plainly and unmistakably within the terms.'
- The jury found Lederman not to be an outside salesman and Frontier liable for some overtime, leading to a damages award of $17,440.86.
- This court reversed and remanded, holding the 'plainly and unmistakably' formulation was error and that the proper standard is the preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the burden standard for FLSA exemptions was correct | Lederman | Frontier | District court erred; proper standard is preponderance of the evidence |
| Whether the jury instruction on exemption mis-stated the law | Lederman argued the instruction is proper | Frontier argued it is a correct burden | Instruction improperly required 'plainly and unmistakably' and mis-stated the law |
| Whether the error was prejudicial to Frontier | Lederman | Frontier | The error was prejudicial; could have influenced the verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Schoenhals v. Cockrum, 647 F.2d 1080 (10th Cir. 1981) (early usage of 'plainly and unmistakably' in statutory interpretation)
- Reich v. Wyoming, 993 F.2d 739 (10th Cir. 1993) (exemption language misquoted; discussed narrowly construed exemptions)
- Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court 1960) (exemptions narrowly construed; plainly and unmistakably within terms)
- Jones v. Tiller, No. 72 F.3d 138 (10th Cir. 1995) (unpublished; misquoted Reich in prior line of cases)
- Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Enters., 179 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 1999) (legal question on whether activities were within exemption; reviewed de novo)
- Clements v. Serco, Inc., 530 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2008) (noted burden on employer to show employees fit plainly and unmistakably within exemption)
- Yi v. Sterling Collision Centers, Inc., 480 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2007) (held preponderance of the evidence is proper burden for FLSA exemptions)
- Donovan v. United Video, Inc., 725 F.2d 577 (2d Cir. 1983) (historical phrase 'clear and affirmative evidence' tied to exemption burdens)