Philip Fowler and Jeffrey Swans v. OSP Prevention Group, Inc. and William E. Mabry II

Atlanta, Georgia employment law lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued defendant on a Fair Labor Standards Act violation theory claiming Defendant failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation.



Philip Fowler and Jeffrey Swans worked as property damage

investigators for OSP Prevention Group. It contracts with broad-

band service providers to investigate damage to the providers' in-

frastructure and then tries to collect money for them from the peo-

ple who caused the damage. After their employment with OSP

ended, Fowler and Swans brought Fair Labor Standards Act

("FLSA”) claims against the company and its owner (collectively

"OSP”) for unpaid overtime wages.



The district court granted summary judgment in OSP's fa-

vor after concluding that Fowler and Swans fit within an FLSA ex-

emption covering "administrative” employees. They both contend

that they weren't administrative employees but instead were "pro-

duction” employees who performed the core service that OSP sold

to its clients: investigating damage to property.



* * *



19-12277 Opinion of the Court 3

The FLSA generally requires employers to pay overtime to

covered employees who work more than 40 hours a week, 29

U.S.C. § 207(a), but it exempts certain categories of employees

from that requirement,

see id. § 213.

See also Encino Motorcars,

LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1138 (2018). This "administrative

exemption” applies to workers who are "employed in a bona fide

executive, administrative, or professional capacity.” 29 U.S.C. §

213(a)(1). The employer has the burden of showing that the ex-

emption applies.

See Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S.

188, 196–97 (1974) (stating that generally "the application of an ex-

emption under the Fair Labor Standards Act is a matter of affirma-

tive defense on which the employer has the burden of proof”);

Diaz

v. Jaguar Rest. Grp., LLC, 627 F.3d 1212, 1214–15 (11th Cir. 2010)

(describing the administrative exemption as an affirmative defense

to an FLSA claim);

see also Novick v. Shipcom Wireless, Inc., 946

F.3d 735, 738 (5th Cir. 2020) ("In a FLSA suit for unpaid overtime,

the defendant employer bears the burden of proof to establish that

an employee falls under an exemption.”). FLSA exemptions must

be given a "fair reading” and not a "narrow” one.

Encino Motor-cars, 138 S. Ct. at 1142.

OSP has failed to show that the FLSA’s administrative ex-

emption applies to Fowler and Swans. As a result, we VACATE

the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further pro-

ceedings consistent with this opinion.



VACATED AND REMANDED.