Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WAGE-HOUR—EXEMPTIONS—N.D. Ill.: Supervisory employee exempt from overtime provisions of FLSA, (Apr 1, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The court held a bench trial to determine whether the employee was, in fact, exempt.

An employee who worked as a supervisor was exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA, ruled a federal district court in Illinois. After his employer challenged whether he was a covered employee under the FLSA, the court held a bench trial to determine his status. The employer claimed that it classified the employee as a salaried management employee, exempting him from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. The record showed definitively that the employee earned well over $684 per week, he regularly directed the work of at least two other employees, his primary duty was management, and his suggestions about “hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status” was given “particular weight.” Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of the employer (Galindo v. Steve Piper and Sons, Inc., No. 21 CV 1822 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2026)).

Wage claims. The employee worked for the employer from 1993 until early 2021, when he claimed he was fired. He brought an FLSA collective action alleging that the employer had paid him in a manner to avoid having to pay him overtime, in violation of the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The employee later amended his complaint to add three additional named plaintiffs.

During the litigation, there was a motion to certify a class and collective action. Thereafter, the employer challenged the employee’s status as a covered employee under the FLSA and whether he could serve as a representative of the collective. In the employer’s view, the employee was a salaried, exempt employee and thus an improper representative of the class.

Bench trial. Ultimately, the parties asked the court to sever the employee’s claims from the remainder of the class and to set the matter for a trial to determine his status under the FLSA. On June 24 and 26, 2024, the court held a bench trial to determine whether the employee was, in fact, exempt.

The employee claimed that the employer failed to pay him minimum wage and also failed to pay him overtime. His overtime claim was predicated upon his allegation that the employer misclassified him as a salaried employee and therefore did not pay him the overtime rate for overtime hours worked, in violation of the FLSA. For its part, the employer claimed that the employee was, at all times, an exempt management employee subject to the executive exemption.

Overtime claim. To prevail on his claim that the employer failed to pay him overtime compensation, the employee had to show that he worked more than 40 hours per week and that the employer failed to pay him overtime at the proper rate.

The parties stipulated that the employer’s work revolved around two seasons: “firewood season,” and “mulch season.” The employee testified that, during mulch season, he normally worked 10 to 11 hours a day, and sometimes 12 hours. The employee would typically spend one or two hours a day making mulch in firewood season and, on those days, would also perform certain mechanical work for the employer.

Further, the parties agreed that the employer never paid the employee overtime per se. But the record showed that the employer paid the employee something beyond his normal 40-hour per week rate. Specifically, he was paid an additional sum each week, which the employer characterized as a “merit check.” Thus, the employee’s pay always significantly exceeded any applicable minimum wage rates. Consequently, the sole question remaining was whether the employer was required to pay the employee overtime pay at an overtime rate.

Overtime exemption. The employer classified the employee as a salaried management employee, exempting him from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. The overtime requirement does not apply to employees in a “bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.”

Salary basis. According to the record, the employee earned well over $684 per week, such that his weekly pay significantly exceeded the executive exemption floor. But the parties disputed whether the employee was paid on a salaried or hourly basis.

The employer paid the employee the same amount each week and attributed 40 hours to him each week, regardless of how many hours he actually worked. It was also shown that the employee received regular raises. In addition, the employer also paid the employee using a “merit check” each week, and that payment amount varied from week to week.

Testimony proffered by the employee showed that the employer paid him on an hourly basis, and that he was also paid for holidays and when he was too sick to report to work. That arrangement was consistent with salaried status, not hourly status, and bolstered the court’s finding that the employee was salaried.

Primary duty. The parties also disputed whether the employee’s primary duty was management and whether he regularly directed the work of at least two other employees. Here, the record showed that he satisfied these criteria.

First, the evidence confirmed that the employee served as a supervisor or foreman for the employer. His payroll records include time dedicated to “supervision.” He assigned the workers to particular crews, routes, and trucks. The employee, himself, testified that the office communicated with him about logistics and other matters relating to equipment, jobs, etc. Further, the employer provided the employee with a company cellphone and paid the bill for that phone, and provided him with a car allowance of $500 per month.

Moreover, the testimony of other witnesses confirmed the employee’s supervisory role. Employees testified that the employee would bring out the assignment sheets for the jobs from the office, and that he supervised mulch installation and tree crews. Finally, the employee testified that the employer solicited his input regarding raises.

Authority to hire and fire. Finally, to be exempt, an employee must have the authority to hire or fire, or their suggestions about “hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status” must be given “particular weight.” Here, the employer carried its burden to show that the employee satisfied these criteria.

Although the parties stipulated that the company owner hired or authorized the firing of every company employee, the employee testified that he recommended several employees for jobs and those individuals were hired. Thus, such testimony suggested that the employee had input concerning hiring and firing.

Accordingly, the court found that the employee was exempt under the FLSA, and judgment was entered in favor of the employer.

The case is No. 21 CV 1822.

Judge: Blakey, J.

Attorneys: Lisa L. Clay (Law Offices of Lisa L. Clay) for Andres Galindo, Andres Galindo, Jr., Juan C. Ontiveros, and Armando Nicasio. L. Steven Platt (Howard & Howard Attorneys) for Steve Piper and Sons, Inc., and Steve Piper.

Companies: Steve Piper and Sons, Inc.

Cases: WageHour ClassActions Exemptions Overtime CoverageLiability IllinoisNews