Law School Grad Working as Graphic Consultant Not Exempt From Overtime Requirements: Reinforces Need To Evaluate Primary Duties And Avoid Reliance On Job Titles

Kadden v. VisuaLex, LLC, No. 11-CV-4892(SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012, Sheindlin, J.): The plaintiff, a law school graduate,  brought suit against her former employer, VisuaLex, LLC, seeking to recover unpaid overtime and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Kadden earned her Juris Doctor in 2001 and worked for VisuaLex from 2008 through 2011 as a Litigation Graphics Consultant, earning $75,000 per year. VisuaLex argued that Kadden was exempt from overtime requirements under three categories of exemption: the creative professional exemption, the learned professional exemption, and/or the administrative employee exemption. After a bench trial wherein the court engaged in a thorough analysis of the conflicting evidence provided by both parties regarding the plaintiff’s job duties, Judge Shira Sheindlin held that the plaintiff was entitled to overtime pay because the work that she performed did not qualify as exempt under any of the proffered exemptions. The court emphasized that employers cannot rely on job titles alone to satisfy the exempt status of an employee, and instead must engage in an analysis of the employee’s salary and job duties. Importantly, the court did not award liquidated damages because the company had gone to considerable lengths to ascertain whether graphics consultants were exempt from overtime requirements and had classified the plaintiff in good faith. The court explained that the company based its decision on its “genuinely held belief in what the primary duties of a graphics consultant were, notwithstanding the fact that several graphics consultants at VisuaLex did not ultimately perform those duties.”

The decision reinforces the fact that employers must engage in a detailed analysis of each employee’s job duties when making classification decisions rather than rely solely on an employee’s title. Even if a court rules that the employees were misclassified, a detailed and well-documented analysis may help the company demonstrate good faith and avoid liquidated damages.

Note: This articles was published in the October 2012 issue of the New York eAuthority.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×