Chapter § 2-3 29 CFR § 541.2. Job Titles Insufficient

• Jurisdiction: United States

2-3 29 CFR § 541.2. Job Titles Insufficient

A job title alone is insufficient to establish the exempt status of an employee. The exempt or nonexempt status of any particular employee must be determined on the basis of whether the employee's salary and duties meet the requirements of the regulations in this part.

2-3:1 Commentar y

Note that as of December 1, 2016, the salary basis test has changed. From that date forward, white collar exemptions need to make $47,476 annually.

2-3:1.1 Job Title Does Not Control Exempt Status

Employers often seek to shortcut the hard work of determining exempt status by relying on the proxy of a job title. Job titles do not control exempt status determination. The Fifth Circuit has reviewed this issue a number of times.

• McKee v. CBF Corp., No. 3:06-CV-1629-G ECF, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22091 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008), aff'd, 299 F. App'x 426 (5th Cir. 2008) (employee sued claiming that she was entitled to overtime; employer disagreed arguing that she was employed in a bona fide administrative capacity and thus exempt; while the Fifth Circuit ultimately held that she was exempt, it stated that McKee's job title of "property manager" was not relevant to the exempt status inquiry, holding that a job title does not establish whether she was exempt; the relevant inquiry is whether her primary job functions included the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance).
• Reyes v. Tex. EZPawn, 459 F. Supp. 2d 546 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (court notes that the revised FLSA regulations that became effective on August 23, 2004, make clear that the court's inquiry must focus on actual day-to-day job duties performed by employees rather than general descriptions or characterizations of job duties when making exemption determinations).

Employees sometimes argue that a job title confers non-exempt analysis. The same rule applies to them, however.

• Villegas v. Dependable Constr. Servs., Inc., No. 4:07-cv-2165, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98801 (S.D. Tex. December 8, 2008) (holding that conclusions and labels placed on job duties by an employee, as when same argument is made by employer, deserve no weight in making the exemption determination).
• Pickering v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-633-WKW[WO], 2011 WL 111730 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2011) (Rule 12(b)(6) motion granted on collective action claim where plaintiff only alleged that he was a "sales representative" as were other similarly situated

...