Anani v. CVS RX Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the administrative exemption under the FLSA requires an employee to satisfy “a duties requirement and a salary requirement”
• noting that an employee’s salary was “guaranteed” when it was “paid regardless of the number of hours appellant actually worked in a given forty-four-hour shift”
• recognizing the significance of the fact that the highly compensated employee “regulation is found in the ‘Salary Requirements’ Subpart rather than in the ‘duties requirements’ Subparts, and there is direct evidence that this placement was not the result of administrative inadvertence”
• employee’s “base weekly salary was guaranteed, i.e. to be paid regardless of the number of hours . . . actually worked”
• “We perceive no cogent reason why the requirements of C.F.R. § 541.604 must be met by an employee meeting the requirements of C.F.R. § 541.601.”
• “We perceive no cogent reason why the requirements of [] § 541.604 must be met by an employee meeting the requirements of [] § 541.601.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).