Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc.

Background

A certified class of TEKsystems, Inc. (“TEK”) Recruiters alleged that TEK improperly classified them as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws. The pending principal motion was the Recruiters’ motion for partial summary judgment on TEK’s affirmative defense that the Recruiters qualified for California’s administrative exemption.

TEK is an information-technology staffing and services company. Its Recruiters generally find, screen, and present possible IT consultants who match job requirements supplied by TEK’s clients. Account Managers decide which candidates to submit to clients, and clients decide which candidates to hire. Recruiters also sometimes negotiate consultants’ pay within ranges set by TEK management or client requirements.

Administrative exemption

California’s administrative exemption requires TEK to prove all of several requirements, including that Recruiters primarily perform office or non-manual work directly related to TEK’s or its customers’ management policies or general business operations; regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment; work under only general supervision while performing specialized or technical work requiring special training, experience, or knowledge, or while executing special assignments; and spend more than half their work time on qualifying duties. TEK bore the burden of proving the affirmative defense.

The court held that TEK had not identified evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Recruiters met all of these requirements.

Work related to business operations

The court found that Recruiters’ primary duty was finding, screening, and presenting qualified candidates, which constituted the day-to-day carrying out of TEK’s staffing business rather than work related to TEK’s management policies or general business operations. The court also found that negotiating consultants’ pay was part of TEK’s day-to-day staffing business, occurred within set pay ranges, and was not shown to occupy more than half of Recruiters’ time or to be of substantial importance to TEK.

The court rejected TEK’s argument that Recruiters performed administrative work for TEK’s clients. The evidence showed that Recruiters sometimes attended client calls, asked questions, and provided information about candidates or technical needs. The court found no evidence that this work was of substantial importance to the clients’ business operations or that it was a primary duty of Recruiters. The court also found that Recruiters’ communications with consultants about client feedback did not amount to independently managing the consultants’ work.

Discretion and independent judgment

The court compared Recruiters’ screening work to the work of a personnel clerk who screens applicants using standards set by others. Although Recruiters could choose how to source candidates and which candidates to present to Account Managers, Account Managers chose which candidates to send to clients, and clients decided whom to hire and how much to pay them. The court concluded that TEK had not presented evidence that Recruiters’ decisions involved matters of significance.

General supervision and specialized work

Even assuming some Recruiters worked with little oversight, the court found no evidence that their screening and candidate-selection work required special training, experience, or knowledge. TEK’s documents described recruiting as an entry-level position, and its job description stated that no information-technology experience was needed because TEK provided recruiter training. The court concluded that TEK had not shown that Recruiters satisfied this exemption requirement either.

Other motions

The court denied TEK’s motion to strike the declaration of Lynsey Major. The court held that her summaries of TEK data met the requirements for summary evidence and that the rule governing expert testimony did not bar her declaration. The court emphasized that it did not rely on the declaration in deciding the partial-summary-judgment motion.

The court overruled the Recruiters’ objection to the LinkedIn profiles of the named plaintiffs for purposes of the summary-judgment order. The court granted the administrative motion to seal four exhibits because they contained confidential business information whose public disclosure could harm TEK or disrupt its business relationships. The court also denied the Recruiters’ motion for leave to file responses to TEK’s objections.

Disposition

The court granted the Recruiters’ motion for partial summary judgment, granted the administrative motion concerning sealing, denied TEK’s motion to strike, and denied the Recruiters’ motion for leave to file responses to TEK’s objections. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 100, 102, 112, and 122.