Johnson v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• relying upon testimony from up to seven witnesses per case, including supervisors, assistant supervisors and subordinate co-workers
• finding hourly rate analysis both relevant and appropriate to proper executive exemption determination
• relying upon 43 hours of trial testimony concerning Big Lots’s operations, and additional trial testimony concerning the daily activities of the individual assistant manager plaintiffs, including testimony from up to seven witnesses per case
• finding no willful violation of the FLSA in part because there was “no evidence suggesting an overarching corporate policy” to deny assistant managers managerial responsibilities in an effort to avoid paying FLSA-mandated overtime
• finding a salaried employee’s “completion of [non-managerial] tasks was essential to the functioning of the store” when the employer set a strict labor budget for the store that resulted in excess non-managerial tasks routinely falling on that employee
• “Many courts have held that resolving this difficult and intensive factual inquiry is inappropriate at summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).