Target Denied Summary Judgment on Manager's Overtime Claim

​Target Corp. could not obtain summary judgment on the overtime claim of an executive team leader (ETL) who claimed that she merely conveyed the orders of a store team leader (STL) and was paid little more than non-managers, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled.

The plaintiff brought a collective action against Target, a national retailer with approximately 1,900 stores in 50 states, on behalf of herself and other ETLs. The lawsuit claimed that Target improperly classified the ETLs as exempt from overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Target hired the plaintiff as an executive in training (EIT) in one of its stores. As an EIT, Target paid the plaintiff as a nonexempt, hourly employee while she trained and worked alongside an ETL. The plaintiff soon became an ETL—Food and, after one year, her job title changed to ETL—Food & Beverage Sales. She remained in this position until her termination of employment nine months later.

As an ETL, the plaintiff was classified as an exempt employee. She was one of eight or nine exempt employees at the store who were responsible for roughly 200 employees and who reported to the STL. As the ETL in charge of the Food Department (grocery and food service), the plaintiff oversaw approximately 75 employees, including five team leads who oversaw various subareas in the food department and who reported to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff testified that she worked 60 to 70 hours per week. Her salary started at $70,000 and grew to $74,000. She was also eligible for a bonus based on her department's productivity. Target moved for summary judgment by asserting that all the elements of the bona fide executive exemption were satisfied by the plaintiff's employment terms.

The plaintiff did not dispute that she earned more than the threshold salary requirement of $684 per week, that she customarily and regularly supervised the work of two or more employees, or that she made staff decisions and recommendations as an ETL. Her only dispute was that management was not her primary duty.

Target argued that the plaintiff's primary duty was the management of the food department. It claimed that, as the sole ETL responsible for the food department at the store, she engaged in many managerial activities. These included directing the work of team leads, ensuring that team leads were accountable for their subareas, being accountable for her department's execution of the weekly sales plan and a staffing plan, and leading the completion of hourly tasks by delegation.

Target also presented evidence that the plaintiff participated in preparation for executive and regulatory visits, was responsible for overseeing compliance with wage and hour requirements, and frequently opened the store. The plaintiff's performance reviews included self-assessments in which the plaintiff credited herself with management duties and qualities and did not claim to perform hourly work. Target also argued that she played a role in staff decisions and discipline.

In response, the plaintiff argued that her most important duty, which took up the majority of her workday, was the performance of nonexempt work. She claimed that she spent 80 to 90 percent of her workday performing tasks such as stocking shelves, working the cash register, placing newly received merchandise, setting up displays, cleaning the store, folding clothes, unloading trucks, assisting customers and filling Internet orders. She claimed she did this hourly work due to chronic understaffing.

The plaintiff also claimed that, when she was allowed to exercise some discretionary managerial responsibility, it was limited to low-level and rote tasks, such as making sure staff took breaks, and was often done at the behest and with the guidance of HR. When she participated in interviews for hourly positions, it was of prescreened applicants using prescribed questionnaires, and HR made the decisions. She claimed that her STL managed every aspect of the store and closely supervised her, sometimes giving instructions over walkie-talkies, and assigning her lists of things to do.

Finally, the plaintiff argued that, because she worked 60 to 70 hours per week, her effective hourly rate of pay was $21.89, while team leads were paid an average of $19 per hour.

The court determined that fact issues concerning the nature of the plaintiff's duties precluded summary judgment. It ruled that the case would have to be tried before a jury.

Babbitt v. Target Corp., D. Minn., Civil No. 20-490 (Feb. 2, 2022).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.