Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—EXEMPTIONS—M.D. Fla.: Employer unable to show restaurant employee was exempt from FLSA overtime requirements, (Aug 4, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court determined that the employee’s declaration created a genuine dispute of material fact and precluded summary judgment.

A federal district court in Florida denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment against an employee’s claim he was denied overtime while working for a restaurant. The employer asserted that the employee, as the restaurant’s general manager, was exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA because he was employed “as an executive and administrative employee. The employee countered that he was just a server and was not responsible for day-to-day operations. The court determined that the employee’s declaration created a genuine dispute of material fact and precluded summary judgment (Macias v. El Balon, Inc., No. 8:25-cv-1574-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla. July 30, 2026)).

The employer owns and operates a Mexican restaurant in Tampa, Florida. In 2011, the employer hired the employer to work at the restaurant and provided him with a 10-percent stake in the company. The employee worked at the restaurant with a manager title from 2011 until October 2024. He received a salary and was paid weekly for his work.

Disputed duties. According to the employer, the employee was the was the “general manager” of the restaurant and functioned in that capacity until he “resigned” in 2024. The employee allegedly supervised and was responsible for all of the restaurant’s day-to-day operations, including managing vendors and staff. He regularly endorsed checks to pay expenses such as rent, pest control, tips, and even his own salary. As for the staff, the employee allegedly hired and fired employees and set their schedules, asserted the employer.

For his part, the employee presented a different account. He asserted that his title as “manager” did not reflect his actual duties. He claimed the employer in effect “employed him as a non-exempt server.” Further, he asserted that it was the majority owner who was the general manager responsible for the restaurant’s day-to-day operations. Moreover, he explicitly denied that he had the authority to hire or fire employees or that he created the weekly schedules.

The employee conceded that he engaged in some managerial activities “when directed.” For example, he participated in interviews but maintained that he “did not make hiring decisions.” He also admitted to signing and endorsing checks for expenses and his own pay but contended that he only acted upon the direction of the owner. According to the employee, he spent less than 10 percent of his time on managerial tasks. He also asserted that despite his title, his primary role was to perform the same work as the hourly employees.

Termination and lawsuit. In October 2024, the employee was terminated by the owner after he complained about not getting overtime compensation. Thereafter, the employee filed suit bringing two FLSA claims for failure to pay overtime wages. Specifically, the employee alleged that he worked an average of 50 hours per week and was not paid for his overtime, despite clocking in and out of his shifts. He also brought a breach of contract claim for failure to pay his stake of company profits “from 2011 to the present time.” The employer moved for summary judgment only on the FLSA claims.

Employee exemption. The employer argued that the employee was exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA because he was employed “as an executive and administrative employee” under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). The employee countered that genuine disputes of material fact concerning his duties precluded summary judgment.

“A job title alone is insufficient to establish the exempt status of an employee,” which “must be determined on the basis of whether the employee’s salary and duties meet the requirements of the regulations,” observed the court.

Administrative exemption. The administrative exemption has three elements. First, the employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis “at a rate of not less than $684 per week.” Second, his primary duty must be the performance of “office or non-manual work directly related to management or general business operations.” Last, the “primary duty” must “include[] the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.”

The employer argued that the employee qualified for the administrative exemption from overtime pay due to his role overseeing the restaurant’s employees and general operations. In a sworn declaration, the employee “disputes any claim that he had authority to negotiate, bind the company, formulate policy, implement management decisions, or exercise independent judgment over matters of significance.”

Here, the court determined that the employee’s declaration created a genuine dispute of material fact and precluded summary judgment. The employee demurred to having exercised independent discretion or judgment in his duties, denied that he set employees’ schedules, hired or fired employees, or made purchasing decisions without direction. The uncontradicted record did not undercut the employee’s declaration about his duties, and a reasonable jury could conclude that he lacked discretion in his role.

Executive exemption. The employer also argued that the employee fell under the executive employee exemption due to his responsibility for managing the restaurant. The executive exemption has four elements. First, the employee is compensated above a minimum salary. Second, his “primary duty is management of the enterprise in which [he is] employed.” Third, he “customarily and regularly direct[s] the work of two or more other employees.” Last, he “has the authority to hire or fire other employees or [his] suggestions and recommendations... are given particular weight.”

The court addressed only the fourth element because it was dispositive. To satisfy the fourth element, a defendant must show that the plaintiff hired and fired employees or that he provided substantial input in the process.

The employer argued only that the employee hired and fired employees. However, it did not name any specific employee hired or fired by him. Absent additional evidence, the employee’s declaration denying the allegations was enough to raise a genuine dispute of material fact.

Construing all available inferences in the employee’s favor, the court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that he was employed in a bona fide executive capacity.

Accordingly, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 8:25-cv-1574-KKM-TGW.

Judge: Mizelle, K.

Attorneys: Jason S. Remer (Remer, Georges-Pierre & Hoogerwoerd) for Gustavo Javier Macias. Dean Adrian Kent (Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O’Neill & Mullis) for El Balon, Inc. and Fabian Jimenez.

Companies: El Balon, Inc.

Cases: WageHour Exemptions Overtime ContractClaims FloridaNews