Madero Development & Construction Co. v. City of El Paso (1992)

A. The Executive Exemption 30 The regulations provide both a "short test" and a "long test" for determining whether an employee's primary duty is management. 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 ; see Murray v. Stuckey's, Inc., 939 F.2d 614 , 617 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992).

A. The Executive Exemption The regulations provide both a “short test” and a “long test” for determining whether an employee’s primary duty is management. 29 C.F.R. § 541.1 ; see Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 614 , 617 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992).

Of Commerce, 649 S.W.2d 769, 771-72 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1983, no writ); see also City of El Paso v. Madero Development, 803 S.W.2d 396, 399 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992) (there are three jurisdictional elements: jurisdiction over subject matter; jurisdiction over person or res; and power to render judgment or relief under the circumstances).

See City of El Paso v. Madero Dev., 803 S.W.2d 396, 401 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1991, writ denied), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992) (reversing trial court’s judgment and dismissing based on lack of ripeness despite two city alderman stating "words to' the effect that they wished to impede the development of the propérty by zoning the property” for more restrictive use (citing Mayhew )). 10 .

See Spinden, 94 F.3d at 427 ; see also Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 614 , 618 (8th Cir.1991) (holding that fact that employee spent 65 to 90 percent of time on nonexempt tasks was not controlling factor under the regulations), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992). “[A]n employee’s primary duty is that which is of principle importance to the employer rather than collateral tasks which may take up more than 50% of his or her time.” Id.

The Burger King court’s reasoning is equally applicable here: “The exercise of discretion ... even where circumscribed by prior instruction, is as critical to [the company’s] success as adherence to ‘the book.’ Burger King, of course, seeks to limit likely mistakes in judgment by issuing detailed guidelines, but judgments must still be made.” Id. at 521-22 ; see also Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 614 , 619 (8th Cir.1991) (“[W]e do not believe that the local store manag…

See Waffle House, 1983 WL 2108 , Murray v. Stuckey’s, Inc., 939 F.2d 614 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992), Meyer v. Worsley Companies, 881 F.Supp. 1014, 1020 (E.D.N.C.1994). 16 .

See Spinden v. GS Roofing Products Co., Inc., 94 F.3d 421 (8th Cir.1996) cert, denied„ — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1254 , 137 L.Ed.2d 334 (1997) (plant controller in charge of “essentially a one-man department” was an exempt administrative employee even though he spent most of his time doing bookkeeping functions); Reich v. Avoca Motel Corp., 82 F.3d 238 (8th Cir. 1996) (administrative exemption covers motel managers who spent a significant amount of time on-call and doing non-exemp…

See, e.g., Murray v. Stuckley’s Inc., 939 F.2d 614 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992); O’Dell v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 856 F.2d 1452, 1453-54 (9th Cir.1988); Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 675 F.2d 516, 518, 521 (2nd Cir.1982) (Donovan II); Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221 (1st Cir.1982) (Donovan I); Russell v. Mini-Mart, Inc., 711 F.Supp. 556 (D.Mont.1988); Stein v. J.C.

See City of El Paso v. Madero Dev., 803 S.W.2d 396, 400 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied), ce rt. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992).

See Committee on Legal Ethics v. Farber, 185 W.Va. 522 , 408 S.E.2d 274 (1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1073 , 112 S.Ct. 970 , 117 L.Ed.2d 135 (1992). 10 .