Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—EXEMPTIONS—E.D.N.Y.: Technical employee not exempt from overtime pay under ‘computer professional,’ ‘administrative’ exemptions, (Jul 24, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

According to the employee’s direct manager, he was promoted because the role of Lead Network Engineer more accurately reflected the work that he was already doing, and because his skillset and knowledge was “well-above” that of his teammates.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, a federal district court in New York concluded that an employee who provided trader voice support for Wells Fargo was not exempt from overtime under the FLSA and NYLL under either the “computer professional” exemption or the “administrative” exemption. As an initial matter, the court held that because there were genuine disputes of material fact concerning the employee’s primary duty, summary judgment was denied as to the applicability of the computer professional exemption. Further, because the employee did not exercise discretion and independent judgment, summary judgment was in his favor with respect to the administrative exemption (Principe v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 25-cv-3311 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y. July 23, 2026)).

The employee worked in trader voice support for Wells Fargo. He learned to perform his work through on-the-job training; he did not receive a formal engineering education and the highest level of education that he completed was junior high school.

System support. Before his promotion in February 2025, the employee was a Senior Systems Operations Engineer in the Voice Implementation Support group. Senior Systems Operations Engineers provide system support for technical issues and initiatives related to voice systems, principally, by responding to one-off requests for so-called “MACDs”. Basically, he moved telephony equipment between locations, or added users, lines or programs to an existing telephony system. In this role, the employee was classified as a non-exempt employee, making him eligible for overtime compensation.

Promotion and classification. On February 9, 2025, the employee was promoted to Lead Network Engineer with an annual salary of $141,564.80. Lead Network Engineers lead the review and implementation of complex technical issues involving voice and other technology systems. The employee’s direct manager stated that he was promoted because the role of Lead Network Engineer more accurately reflected the work that he was already doing, and because his skillset and knowledge as “well-above” that of his teammates.

After the employee was promoted, his daily duties did not change, and he did not receive additional supervisory responsibilities, policymaking authority, or hiring and firing authority. Nonetheless, because of the promotion, he became classified as an exempt employee, making him ineligible for overtime compensation.

The employee was paid a flat annual salary regardless of the number of hours he worked but he believed that he had been improperly classified as an exempt employee. He argued that he had been deprived of proper overtime compensation under both federal and state law. For its part, the employer contended that the employee was exempt from coverage under the FLSA and NYLL under the computer professional and administrative exemptions.

Exemptions. Because the NYLL “mandates overtime pay and applies the same exemptions as the FLSA,” the court analyzed the exemptions only under the FLSA for purposes of the instant motions.

Computer professional exemption. The FLSA exempts “any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is”: (A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including hardware, software, or system functional specifications; (B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs; (C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or (D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), and who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour.

In this case, the parties agreed that the employee’s annual salary of $141,564.80 as a Lead Network Engineer exceeded the FLSA and NYLL’s thresholds. They also agreed on some of the work that the employee performed.

The court concluded that the employee performed both non-exempt and exempt work—the latter falling principally under Section 213(a)(17)(A), which involves “appl[ying] [] systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications.” This posed a complication: figuring out which type of work is the employee’s “primary” work. The court determined that it could not permissibly answer this question because a jury could reasonably answer it in favor of either side. Because the nature and complexity of the employee’s responsibilities was heavily disputed, the question of how the employee primarily spends his working hours was a genuine dispute of material fact that the court had to leave to a jury.

Administrative exemption. According to Department of Labor regulations, an “employee employed in a bona fide administrative capacity” includes any employee who is compensated no less than $684 per week, and whose primary duty is performing work “directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer” and “exercis[ing] [] discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.” Here, the employee’s salary clearly exceeded the threshold.

The employer argued that the employee’s work directly supported its business operations, because he analyzed needs on the trading floor and recommended technical improvements, coordinated with external vendors, and helped identify cost-saving measures and ensure regulatory compliance. Second, it argued that he exercised discretion and independent judgment: he has flexible work hours, is encouraged to bypass procedures and recommend solutions, and manages and trains other team members.

However, the court pointed out that the employee performed all of his work within existing systems and workflows created by others and did not formulate policies, determine operational priorities, design systems, create network architecture, or participate in management planning. To the extent that he helped save costs or ensured regulatory compliance, he was simply executing directives—the development of those measures was above his paygrade.

Accordingly, the court agreed with the employee that he merely exercised “technical judgment in carrying out assigned operational tasks”—he did not change how the employer did business, and he did not have any say with respect to management policies.

Thus, the court concluded that the administrative exemption did not apply.

The case is No. 25-cv-3311 (BMC).

Judge: Cogan, B.

Attorneys: Preetpal Grewal (McKinley Onua & Associates) for Giuseppe Principe. Douglas J. Klein (Jackson Lewis) for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Companies: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Cases: WageHour Exemptions Overtime NewYorkNews