C.F.R.
»
Title 29
» CHAPTER V—WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER A—REGULATIONS › PART 541—DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE EXEMPTIONS FOR EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, PROFESSIONAL, COMPUTER AND OUTSIDE SALES EMPLOYEES › Subpart B—Executive Employees
To determine whether an employee's suggestions and recommendations are given “particular weight,” factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, whether it is part of the employee's job duties to make such suggestions and recommendations; the frequency with which such suggestions and recommendations are made or requested; and the frequency with which the employee's suggestions and recommendations are relied upon. Generally, an executive's suggestions and recommendations must pertain to employees whom the executive customarily and regularly directs. It does not include an occasional suggestion with regard to the change in status of a co-worker. An employee's suggestions and recommendations may still be deemed to have “particular weight” even if a higher level manager's recommendation has more importance and even if the employee does not have authority to make the ultimate decision as to the employee's change in status.
Notes of Decisions
Morgan v. Fam. Dollar Stores, Inc., 551 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 3× “104 (a) (2006); 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 (a) (2003). As to equivalency, an employee may supervise one full-time employee and two part-time employees.”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 567 (E.D. La. 2008).
· cites it 4× “104 (a) (post-2004); 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 (a) (pre-2004). Of particular importance here are the terms “full-time” and “equivalent.”
Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 604 F. Supp. 2d 903 (E.D. La. 2009).
· cites it 4× “104 (a) (post-2004); 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 (a) (pre-2004). Of particular importance here are the terms “full-time” and “equivalent.”
Terry Madden v. Lumber One Home Ctr., 745 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 4× “29 C.F.R. § 541.105 . The district court, in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for judgment as a matter of law, found that Lumber One presented no evidence that the plaintiffs had the authority to make personnel decisions or that Morton gave their hiring recommendations particular…”
Evelyn Garrison v. ConAgra Foods Packaged Foods, 833 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2016).
“29 C.F.R. § 541.105 . In Madden, this Court found that “[a]fter looking at the different factors [other] courts used to find the fourth element satisfied, including the offering of personnel recommendations that were acted upon by managers, involvement in screening applicants…”
Rooney v. Town of Groton, 577 F. Supp. 2d 513 (D. Mass. 2008).
· cites it 3× “29 C.F.R. § 541.105 . Some factors to consider in the determination of “particular weight” include whether it is a part of Lieutenant Rooney’s job description to make recommendations, the frequency of such recommendations, and the frequency with which the recommendations are…”
Hill v. R+ L Carriers, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2010).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 . Plaintiff testified that he was not asked for recommendations, and, to the extent that he gave any, they were ignored.”
Julio Barreto v. Davie Marketplace, LLC, 331 F. App'x 672 (11th Cir. 2009).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 . Here, Barreto’s testimony established that, in one instance, his recommendation to fire an employee for a serious infraction — stealing—was followed; however, his testimony also showed that in another instance, he recommended hiring additional employees…”
Shean Emmons v. City of Chesapeake, 982 F.3d 245 (4th Cir. 2020).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 . The regulation further specifies that an employee’s recommendations may have particular weight “even if a higher level manager's recommendation has more importance.”
Smith v. Heartland Auto. Servs., Inc., 418 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (D. Minnesota 2006).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 (a). The regulations make clear that “this criterion is met if an employee supervises several part-time employees whose total hours of work are the equivalent of two full-time employees.”
Mies v. Sephora U.S.A., Inc. CA1/1, 24 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“104 (2014)); what it means for an employee’s hiring or firing recommendation to be given particular weight ( 29 C.F.R. § 541.105 (2014) [consider whether part of employee’s job duties, frequency given and relied upon, can have weight “even if a higher level manager’s…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.