Matthew Dewan v. M-I, L.L.C.
858 F.3d 331
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- M-I SWACO employed mud engineers (minimum HS diploma) who tested and managed drilling fluids on customer drilling sites and followed mud plans created by M-I project engineers.
- Engineers performed tests (pH, rheology, weight, viscosity) in lab trailers or on vehicle tailgates and typically were the only M-I employees on site.
- Plaintiffs Dewan and Casey sued for unpaid overtime under the FLSA; M-I asserted the administrative exemption as an affirmative defense.
- The district court granted summary judgment for M-I on the administrative exemption; plaintiffs appealed.
- The question below centered on whether (a) the engineers’ primary duty was non-manual work “directly related to management or general business operations,” and (b) whether they exercised "discretion and independent judgment" on matters of significance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mud engineers’ primary duty is work "directly related to management or general business operations" | Dewan/Casey: their duties are production/field service (producing the company’s revenue-generating service), not administrative; analogous to nonexempt blue‑collar roles | M-I: engineers advise customers, perform quality control and consulting functions that are directly related to management/business operations | Court: Genuine dispute of material fact remains; summary judgment was improper on this element |
| Whether engineers exercise "discretion and independent judgment" on matters of significance | Plaintiffs: they merely follow mud plans and apply established techniques; recommendations require approval | M-I: engineers evaluate conditions and choose additives/tradeoffs, sometimes deviating from plans — exercising discretion | Court: Evidence (including plaintiffs’ testimony) leaves factual disputes about scope of discretion; cannot resolve on summary judgment |
| Burden of proof at summary judgment on employer’s affirmative defense | Plaintiffs: district court shifted burden and required plaintiffs to negate exemption | M-I: (implicit) employer established exemption facts at summary judgment | Court: Employer must prove defense beyond peradventure; here M-I did not meet that strict showing; remaining factual disputes preclude summary judgment |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on exemption defense | Plaintiffs: factual inferences should go to a jury given competing evidence | M-I: claimed undisputed facts support exemption as matter of law | Court: Reversed and remanded because drawing legitimate inferences is a jury function and genuine disputes exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1981) (FLSA remedial purpose and overtime background)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment and drawing inferences are jury functions)
- Owsley v. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist., 187 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 1999) (standard of review for FLSA exemption burden)
- Dalheim v. KDFW-TV, 918 F.2d 1220 (5th Cir. 1990) (distinguishing administrative duties from production duties)
- Bratt v. County of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1990) (advice must relate to management policies/operations to qualify)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (U.S. 2000) (deference to agency interpretations limited; opinion letters persuasive when persuasive)