This is an interesting case. A class action that was denied certification, appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed because the lower court did not properly interpret the job description on the key issue of duties qualifying for the employer to claim the protection of the Part 541 exemptions. The employees were salesmen and installation technicians. Now, they get another shot to prove they are worthy of class status. The case is entitled Sydney et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment-Advance/Newhouse Partnership and issued from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The lower court had relied upon the outside sales exemption. The panel, however, concluded that the jobs seemed much more inclined to be installation jobs, rather than selling jobs. Therefore, it was too early and improper to grant summary judgment as there were issues of fact. The Court stated that “we conclude that the district court erred in holding on summary judgment that plaintiffs’ primary duties were exempt sales, as opposed to nonexempt installations, and accordingly in its ultimate conclusion that the outside sales exemption applied.”
These workers, dubbed territory sales representatives, or TSRs, contacted apartment building owners in upstate New York. Their role was to urge these owners to funnel their tenants to the Employer for their cable TV, internet and phone service needs. They received a small salary and commissions. The plaintiffs allege they spent some time making calls to get business but the majority of their time was supposedly spent doing the actual installations (which would obviously be non-exempt work). They asserted that they worked 55-70 hours per week.
They sued but the lower court rejected their claims, relying on the outside sales exemption, finding that that “based on [the] undisputed facts, the court finds that plaintiff’s primary duty was making sales.” The Second Circuit disagreed. That Court noted that the men went to work in hard hats and safety glasses. They also carried tool boxes full of different tools. Also, there were other employees whose job was to focus on door-to-door sales.
The issue on summary judgment was whether the facts, i.e., the job description, undisputedly showed that the men were outside salesmen. If, however, the facts on the ground differ from the printed description, that job description will be worthless as a defense in proving the exemption. In other words, if the workers spend the majority of the time at work performing nonexempt work, such as installations they are non-exempt.
Simple as that…