United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. Guzmán United States District Judge
reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for summary
judgment  is denied.
is a full-service financial consulting firm. (Pl.'s Resp.
Def.'s Stmt. Facts, Dkt. # 42, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff began
work with Defendant as an office coordinator on January 7,
2011, and her employment was terminated on April 22, 2016.
(Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.) Plaintiff alleges overtime
violations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
(“IMWL”), and the Illinois Wage Payment
Collection Act (“IWPCA”). Defendant moves for
summary judgment as to the FLSA claim.
judgment is proper when the “‘materials in the
record, including depositions, documents, electronically
stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations
(including those made for purposes of the motion only),
admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials'
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Baines v. Walgreen Co., 863 F.3d 656,
661 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)). The party
opposing summary judgment “cannot merely rest on its
pleadings; it must affirmatively demonstrate, by producing
evidence that is more than ‘merely colorable' that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Omnicare, Inc.
v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 705 (7th Cir.
2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). A genuine issue of material fact
exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
the FLSA requires employers to pay its employees overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours, certain
classes of workers are exempt from the FLSA's coverage.
29 U.S.C. §§ 207, 213. Under section 213(a)(1),
“any employee employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional capacity” is exempt
from the FLSA's overtime requirements. 29 U.S.C. §
213(a)(1). Defendant contends that Plaintiff was exempt from
the FLSA as an administrative employee.
to regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor
(“DOL”), an “employee employed in a bona
fide administrative capacity” shall mean any employee:
“(1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of
not less than $455 per week . . ., exclusive of board,
lodging or other facilities; (2) Whose primary duty is the
performance of office or non-manual work directly related to
the management or general business operations of the employer
or the employer's customers; and (3) Whose primary duty
includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment
with respect to matters of significance.” 29 C.F.R.
§ 541.200(a)(1)-(3). Plaintiff does not dispute that she
received a salary in excess of $455.00 per week or that her
primary duties consisted of office work and did not include
manual labor. Plaintiff contends, however, that her job did
not relate to the “management or general business
operations” of Defendant under the second prong and she
did not “exercise discretion or independent judgment
with respect to matters of significance” under the
respect to whether her job related to the management or
general business operations of Defendant, Plaintiff asserts
that the work she performed must directly relate to the
business operations of the employee's customers.
(Pl.'s Resp., Dkt. # 43, at 6.) This assertion is
unsupported by any citation to authority, and contradicts the
express language of the regulation, so the Court will not
consider it. The undisputed record establishes that
Plaintiff's work “directly related to the
management and general business operations of”
Defendant or its customers, and therefore, the second prong
exercise of discretion prong, as used in this regulation,
means that an employee engages in “the comparison and
evaluation of possible courses of conduct, and acting or
making a decision after the various possibilities have been
considered.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.202(a). The DOL has
provided a non-exclusive list of relevant factors to assist
in determining whether an employee exercises discretion and
independent judgment, including:
[W]hether the employee has authority to formulate, affect,
interpret, or implement management policies or operating
practices; whether the employee carries out major assignments
in conducting the operations of the business; whether the
employee performs work that affects business operations to a
substantial degree, even if the employee's assignments
are related to operation of a particular segment of the
business; whether the employee has authority to commit the
employer in matters that have significant financial impact;
whether the employee has authority to waive or deviate from
established policies and procedures without prior approval;
whether the employee has authority to negotiate and bind the
company on significant matters; whether the employee provides
consultation or expert advice to management; whether the
employee is involved in planning long- or short-term business