Maestas v. Day & Zimmerman, LLC
664 F.3d 822
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Private security officers (SOs and SPOs) at Los Alamos National Laboratory allege misclassification as exempt under the FLSA; district court granted summary judgment finding all plaintiffs were executive exempt.
- Dispute centers on each plaintiff's primary duty—the key determinant under FLSA exemptions—and whether it is managerial/administrative or first-responder (non-exempt) work.
- Plaintiffs argue their primary duties include front-line law enforcement as first responders; SOC contends the primary duties are managerial/administrative, making them exempt.
- Court explains primary duty is a fact-bound, time-and-importance analysis under 29 C.F.R. §§ 541.100, 541.200, 541.708, and that first-responder status does not automatically erase an exemption if managerial duties dominate.
- Icicle Seafoods and related authority guide the conclusion that primary-duty determination is factual; summary judgment proper only if no genuine dispute exists as to the primary duties of the plaintiffs; court reverses for Maestas, Marquez, and Gregory, but affirms for May and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is primary duty a question of fact rather than law? | Maestas argues primary duty is first-responder work. | SOC argues primary duty is managerial/administrative. | Primary-duty is a factual question; summary judgment improper where disputes exist. |
| Whether Marquez's duties show primary duty as administrative or first responder. | Marquez's field lieutenant duties resemble first responder work. | Marquez's administrative SASS duties could be primary. | Reversed; genuine facts prevent summary judgment as to Marquez. |
| Whether Gregory's duties support an exemption or require non-exempt classification. | Gregory performs field command and some managerial tasks. | Need clear evidence of primary managerial duties and pay premium. | Reversed; lack of evidence on primary duty and discretion requires trial. |
| Whether May's duties are primarily managerial, justifying exemption. | May handles weapons distribution, briefing, and HQ supervision as managerial. | May's duties include directing in emergencies, challenging to classify as managerial. | Affirmed; May's managerial duties are primary, summary judgment proper against him. |
Key Cases Cited
- Icicle Seafoods v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1986) (primary-duty determination is a factual question)
- Department of Labor v. City of Sapulpa, 30 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 1994) (fact-sensitive inquiry to determine primary duty)
- Foxworthy v. Hiland Dairy Co., 997 F.2d 670 (10th Cir. 1993) (framework for exemptions analysis; time and importance of duties matters)
- Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 360 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2004) (employer bears burden to prove exemption eligibility; 'plainly and unmistakably')
- Mullins v. City of New York, 653 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2011) (DOL interpretation on supervision and first-responder duties not creating exemption)