807 F.3d 431
1st Cir.2015Background
- Two former Dunkin' Donuts store managers in Massachusetts (Marzuq and Chantre) sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA after being paid a salaried weekly amount and working long weeks (schedules often 66 hrs; Marzuq testified 70–80 hrs when covering absent crew).
- Managers signed agreements calling for a ~48–66 hour workweek and had duties including equipment calibration, cash handling, training, scheduling, paperwork, and frequent front‑line customer service when short‑staffed.
- A district manager (Dermandy) supervised multiple stores, visited weekly, set staffing levels, ordered goods, and had significant involvement in hiring/firing decisions; managers had limited discretion on budgets and certain personnel actions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the plaintiffs were exempt “bona fide executive” employees under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) and accompanying DOL regulations; the magistrate judge recommended denial, but the district court granted summary judgment for defendants relying on Donovan v. Burger King.
- The First Circuit vacated summary judgment and remanded, holding material factual disputes remain about whether management was plaintiffs’ "primary duty," requiring factfinder resolution of time spent on exempt v. nonexempt tasks, supervision level, and wage comparisons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether managers satisfy the FLSA "primary duty" (executive) requirement | Marzuq/Chantre: spent most time on nonexempt tasks (serving, cleaning) and thus management was not their primary duty | Cadete: plaintiffs were "in charge" on shift; concurrent performance of nonexempt work does not defeat executive status (per Burger King) | Vacated summary judgment — primary‑duty is factbound; material disputes preclude resolution as a matter of law |
| Whether Burger King controls and permits summary judgment here | Plaintiffs: Burger King rested on trial findings; summary judgment requires drawing inferences for plaintiffs | Defendants: factual similarity to Burger King supports exemption | Court: Burger King relevant but not dispositive; differences (e.g., plaintiffs’ heavy nonexempt time, pay comparisons) create triable issues |
| Proper application of § 541.700 primary‑duty factors (time, importance, supervision, pay comparison) | Plaintiffs: district court failed to apply the multi‑factor regulatory test and ignored factual disputes on those factors | Defendants: asserted factors support exemption (managers listed duties, "in charge", some autonomy) | Court: must analyze all § 541.700 factors; record inconclusive on several factors (notably time spent and salary vs. crew pay) so factfinder must decide |
| Whether salary comparison supports exemption | Plaintiffs: managers’ effective hourly pay (given long hours) is similar to or below crew compensation (including tips), undermining exemption | Defendants: salaried status and duties justify exemption | Held: wage comparison favors plaintiffs at summary judgment stage and contributes to factual dispute requiring trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1982) (assistant managers found "in charge" could be exempt despite significant nonexempt work)
- Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 675 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1982) (discussing managerial time and duties in exemption analysis)
- Morgan v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008) (managers spending 80–90% of time on manual labor supported finding they were nonexempt)
- In re Family Dollar FLSA Litig., 637 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2011) (concurrent performance of nonexempt tasks does not automatically negate managerial primary duty)
- Cash v. Cycle Craft Co., 508 F.3d 680 (1st Cir. 2007) (employer bears burden to prove FLSA exemption)
- Reich v. John Alden Life Ins. Co., 126 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1997) (FLSA exemptions are narrowly construed against employers)