## Facts

- James Costello and Aron Moore worked for Home Depot as Merchandising Assistant Store Managers (MASMs) and were paid a salary rather than hourly wages.
- They sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging they were misclassified as exempt executives and unlawfully denied overtime pay.
- Home Depot relied on the MASM job description and evidence that the position involved leadership, staffing, scheduling, associate development, safety, and meeting store objectives.
- Costello performed hiring-related work, including conducting more than 200 interviews, and stated his hiring recommendations were followed about 90–99% of the time.
- Costello reviewed schedules, met with department supervisors, prepared performance reviews, made recommendations affecting promotions and raises, mentored employees, and had authority to discipline.
- Costello addressed safety issues, participated in management meetings, and sometimes served as manager on duty.
- Costello earned roughly $44,000–$50,000 annually plus bonuses and stock options and worked about 55+ hours per week; hourly employees earned substantially less.
- Costello and Moore asserted that day-to-day they spent most of their time on non-managerial work (e.g., manual labor and customer service) and that managerial work was limited (Costello estimated about 10 hours per week).
- Moore likewise performed interviewing, evaluations, and department oversight, but contended his primary duties were not managerial in practice.

## Issues

1. Whether Costello was exempt from FLSA overtime as an executive employee as a matter of law.
2. Whether Moore was exempt from FLSA overtime as an executive employee as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court denied Home Depot’s motions for summary judgment as to both Costello and Moore.
- The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether each plaintiff’s primary duty was management and whether their recommendations were given the required “particular weight.”

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where material facts are genuinely disputed; courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant and may not resolve credibility conflicts.
- Under the FLSA executive exemption, an employer must show (among other elements) that the employee’s primary duty is management, the employee regularly directs at least two other employees, and the employee’s hiring/firing authority or recommendations are given particular weight.
- “Primary duty” is a fact-intensive inquiry assessed by factors including the relative importance of managerial duties, time spent on managerial work, freedom from supervision, and the relationship between salary and wages paid for non-exempt work.
- Job titles and written job descriptions are not dispositive; the exemption analysis centers on the employee’s actual day-to-day duties.
- Where the record contains competing evidence that managerial tasks existed but non-managerial work may have predominated, the primary-duty determination commonly presents a jury question.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence permitted reasonable factfinders to disagree about whether the plaintiffs’ real primary duties were managerial and whether their recommendations carried particular weight, the court declined to apply the FLSA executive exemption on summary judgment and allowed the overtime claims to proceed.


Costello v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 473 (D. Conn. 2013)