Terry Madden v. Lumber One Home Center
745 F.3d 899
8th Cir.2014Background
- Three former Lumber One employees sued for FLSA overtime, alleging they were misclassified as exempt executives.
- Store opened in Mayflower, Arkansas in 2008; Morton hired Madden, O’Bar, and Wortman with a plan for them to serve as supervisors.
- All plaintiffs were salaried, labeled as executives, and claimed to participate in management decisions.
- Morton made hiring/firing decisions; plaintiffs had limited to no direct involvement in hiring.
- The district court granted judgment for plaintiffs after overturning a jury verdict that found executives, awarding overtime and liquidated damages plus attorneys’ fees.
- This court affirmed as to Madden and O’Bar, reversed as to Wortman, and remanded for recalculation of attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth element of executive exemption at issue | Madden and O’Bar had input; Morton gave their recommendations particular weight. | Input from all employees is not enough; there must be demonstrated particular weight in personnel decisions. | Madden and O’Bar fail; Wortman satisfies fourth element |
| Wortman’s exemption status based on input and direction of employees | Wortman’s recommendations were given particular weight and influenced hiring. | Only general input inferred; no proof of particular weight for Wortman. | Evidence supports Wortman’s exemption |
| Judgment as a matter of law proper for Madden and O’Bar | There was sufficient evidence of input and weight to meet the fourth element. | Jury could not reasonably infer particular weight for Madden and O’Bar. | JML not warranted for Madden and O’Bar; vacated only for Wortman |
| Impact on attorney’s fees on remand | Fees were properly awarded based on successful claims. | Remand requires recalculation of fees in light of Wortman ruling. | Remanded for recalculation of attorneys’ fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovelady v. Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc., 304 F. App'x 301 (5th Cir. 2005) (fourth element considerations for hiring input and weight)
- Rooney v. Town of Groton, 577 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Mass. 2008) (lieutenant input can be given particular weight)
- Clark v. Long, 255 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2001) (avoidance of speculation in JML rulings)
- Hunt v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist., 282 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2002) (high standard to overturn jury verdicts)
- Wilson v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., 382 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2004) (considerations in executive exemption analysis)
- Athey v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 234 F.3d 357 (8th Cir. 2000) (duties actually performed govern exempt status)
- Fife v. Harmon, 171 F.3d 1173 (8th Cir. 1999) (employer bears burden to prove executive exemption)
- Rainey v. McWane, Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 626 (E.D. Tex. 2008) (examples of evaluation of fourth element factors)
- Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 653 (W.D. N.C. 2012) (considerations for weighting hiring recommendations)