Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees

Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees





The case

The family dollar is a nationwide retailer that operates more than 6000 discount stores that deals with various assortments of the products which include Grocery, clothing and many others. In January 2001, the store managers that are Morgan and Richardson filed a case on themselves and also representing other people who had the same complaint. They complained that the family dollar violated the Fair labor standard act (FLSA) rules by refusing to pay the store managers overtime compensation which they consider to be their rights as the employees of the Stores (Hsiao-Ying & Brian, 2005).

The first complaint was that the company only pays the workers between 60-90 hours of work a week and refused to pay them overtime and yet they are expected as always to remain and work more hours than that which is stated.  The plaintiff asserted the unpaid benefits, overtime compensation and the liquidated damages that are related to the willing violation of the rules by the company. The Plaintiff argued that affirmative actions like strict notice should be given to the Family dollar from the court and to make sure that they have understood the rights of the people who work for them without violating the rules. The plaintiff relied on the part of the law that authorizes the court to maintain a case as one collective action so long as the employees’ plaintiff is entirely situated (Siroen & Jean-Marc.2013).

Outcome of the case

The other side of the Family Dollar was also heard as they gave out some affirmative defenses on why that is happening. They said that the store managers were exempt executives in the company from the time they were employed by the first employment details (Dreher & George, 1981). On the other hand, they also denied that the accusation concerning that the violations were willful. They also argued that the collective actions under the constitutions cannot be permitted because the store managers were not similarly situated and that the plaintiff could not satisfy the requirement in accordance with the Constitution in their need of maintaining collective actions. Therefore, the court did not find anything substantial to grant the request of the plaintiff and then they had to do away with the case.

According to me, I think the case filed against the Family Dollar lacked constitutional or the law backing to ensure that they could get what they wanted or rather requested. On the other hand, the Family dollar had the legal defense as they said that the store managers are the exempt executives and therefore they are not supposed to be entitled to any overtime payment. Ideally, I have only known that only the non-exempt employees are the one that has the right to get the overtime pay.


I think that that the managers have to go back and look for how they can request for a salary increment. Moreover, just to talk about the case generally, I can say that the whole case lacked enough evidence since the plaintiff didn’t find anything to nail to the court. On the other hand, the Family dollar managed to take over and defended themselves with enough, simple and oversight defense that helped them to and throws away the case. Due to these, the plaintiff looked for some of the people in addition to the two managers to sue to the stores of irresponsible payment and the same case issue (Eduardo & Brian, 2003).


Dreher, George F. (1981). Predicting the Salary Satisfaction of Exempt Employees. Personnel Psychology, ISSN 0031-5826, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp. 579–589.

Eduardo Larios and Brian H. Kleiner. (2003). Analyzing jobs to determine exempt or non-exempt status. Equal Opportunities International, ISSN 0261-0159, Volume 22, Issue 6/7, pp. 67–73.

Hsiao-Ying Ko (Shye) and Brian H. Kleiner. (2005). Analyzing jobs to determine exempt or non-exempt status. Equal Opportunities International, ISSN 0261-0159, Volume 24, Issue 5/6, pp. 93–100.

Siroen, Jean-Marc. (2013). Labour provisions in preferential trade agreements: current practice and outlook. International labour review, ISSN 0020-7780, Volume 152, Issue 1, pp. 85–106.