Maria Del Carmen HEREDIA-CAMINO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-60088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 8, 2003.
731
Summary Calendar
PER CURIAM:*
Maria Del Carmen Heredia-Camino petitions this court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) allegedly denying her request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief to appeal the Immigration Judge‘s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Convention Against Torture. Heredia-Camino‘s argument is misplaced; the BIA granted her motion for an extension of time. The BIA rejected her brief because it was not served on the INS office of record.
To the extent she alleges a due process violation based on the rejection of her brief, she has failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice. Anwar v. INS, 116 F.3d 140, 145 (5th Cir.1997). Heredia-Camino has not shown that she was unable or unwilling to return “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting
PETITION DENIED.
Erika Anne BONDY; et al., Plaintiffs, Erika Anne Bondy; Gloria Woodard; Stacey J. Eubanks, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-10112
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 9, 2003.
Summary Calendar
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiffs claim that their employer, the City of Dallas, incorrectly categorized their positions as being exempt from the overtime compensation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA“). Both sides moved for summary judgment on the question whether Plaintiffs are “administrative employees” according to the regulations promulgated under the FLSA. The district court granted the City‘s motion, denied Plaintiffs‘, and entered judgment for the City. We affirm.
1. The FLSA requires employers to pay overtime compensation to employees who work more than forty hours during a workweek unless such employees are “employed in a bona fide ... administrative ... capacity—”
2. The first required element of the administrative-capacity exception is that Plaintiffs’ work be “directly related to management policies or general business operations of [their] employer or [their] employer‘s customers.” The intended effect of this phrase is to limit the administrative-capacity exception “to persons who perform work of substantial importance to the management or operation of the business of [the] employer or [the] employer‘s customers.”
3. The significant facts of Plaintiffs’ employment with the City are uncontested. The Dallas Convention Center (“DCC“), for whom Plaintiffs work, rents its facilities to trade shows and conventions. As event coordinators, Plaintiffs are responsible for planning most aspects of convention center events and negotiating with clients on the DCC‘s behalf. Event coordinators arrange for in-house contractors to meet the needs of the DCC‘s clients and act as the on-site contact person during events to address clients’ requests and problems as they arise. They coordinate the provision of utilities and parking and prepare invoices for such services. Event coordinators ensure that the clients have made the necessary pre-event payments and resolve billing disputes both during and after the show. These facts establish that event coordinators “carry out major assignments in conducting the operations of the business” of the DCC and that their work is “of substantial importance to the ... operations of [the DCC] or [the DCC‘s] customers.” Plaintiffs’ work is “directly related to management policies or general business operations of [their] employer or [their] employer‘s customers.”
4. The exception also requires that Plaintiffs exercise discretion and independent judgment. Work satisfying this element “involves the comparison and the evaluation of possible courses of conduct and acting or making a decision after the various possibilities have been considered.”
5. Event coordinators are responsible for deciding whether the client‘s proposed event comports with DCC policies and procedures. If it does not, the event coordinator works with the client to develop a compliant alternative. If the event coordinator determines that compliance cannot be achieved, she recommends to DCC management whether the noncompliance should be excused. Event coordinators also recommend whether a show should be canceled for non-payment, for failure to submit required paperwork, or for other reasons. Further, they make recommendations for revising the DCC‘s policies and procedures. Event coordinators do not have discretion to cancel an event themselves. However, as noted, it is not necessary that the employee have final decision making authority to qualify for the administrative-capacity exemption. Plaintiffs’ decisions and recommendations regarding whether and how a proposed event should go forward are “matters of significance” to the DCC‘s business. Plaintiffs regularly compare alternative courses of action and based thereon make decisions and recommendations. Clearly, Plaintiffs do exercise discretion and independent judgment.
AFFIRMED.