The plaintiff, Linda Heyen, was an assistant manager. The trial court found she worked about 54 hours a week, and spent a great deal of time at the check stand and performing bookkeeping tasks, even though she was able to supervise the store simultaneously. An advisory jury concluded that Safeway did not prove Heyen was exempt. The trial court instructed the jury that it should consider the primary purpose for "mixed" activities - those that involved both non-exempt work and supervision.
Safeway argued this:
So long as the manager is still actively functioning in his/her managerial capacity, and addressing his/her attention to managerial tasks such as observing how the store is running and considering how to make the store perform more efficiently and profitably, how to best model and train the store's employees in proper service activities, how to resolve any employee or operational problems that have arisen or are arising, and instructing employees in that regard, etc., all that time should be considered to fall on the 'exempt' side of the ledger—even if the manager is helping customers or handling product at the same time.
The court engaged in a detailed analysis of federal regulations, the wage order, and California case law, which you can read in the opinion. The punch line is this:
the federal regulations cited in Wage Order 7 expressly recognize that managers sometimes engage in tasks that do not involve the "actual management of the department [or] the supervision of the employees therein." (§ 541.108(a).) In those circumstances, the regulations do not say, as Safeway would have us hold, that those tasks should be considered "exempt" so long as the manager continues to supervise while performing them. Instead, the regulations look to the supervisor‟s reason or purpose for undertaking the task. If a task is performed because it is "helpful in supervising the employees or contribute[s] to the smooth functioning of the department for which [the supervisors] are responsible" (§ 541.108(a), (c)), the work is exempt; if not, it is nonexempt.
The court also found that when the company's expectations regarding the budgeted non-exempt hours, production standards, etc. virtually or expressly require the exempt manager to take on non-exempt tasks, the employer cannot argue that the employee did not live up to its expectations by performing non-exempt work.
So, employers, "working" / floor management, leads, etc. are more likely to be classified as "non-exempt" after this opinion, particularly when these managers are performing duties that non-exempt workers are simultaneously performing. I predict the price of cheesy-poofs will be increasing or the checkout lines are going to be a little longer.
The case is Heyen v. Safeway and the opinion is here.
