Mims V Starbucks Case

LAW 150 Mims v. Starbucks Corp. Fact * Kevin Keevican, Kathleen Mims, and other former managers filed a causal agent against Starbucks seeking unpaying extra time and other amounts. * In Starbucks Corp. Stores the managers responsibilities include supervising and motivating six to thirty employees including supervisors and assistant managers, overseeing guest service and processes employee records, payrolls, and inventory counts. * He or she also develops strategies to increase r razeues, overlook costs, and comply with corporate policies. As a manager Kevin worked seventy hours a week for $650 to $800, a 10 to 20 percent bonus, and fringe benefits that were non avail up to(p) to baristas, such as paid sick leave. * An employees primary feather calling is usually what the employee does that is of principal value to the employer, non the collateral tasks that she whitethorn also fulfil, even if they consume more than half their time. * The Plaintiffs argued that they spent li ttle than 50 percent of their time on managing and therefore they should be entitle to unpaid overtime and other amounts. IssueAre the managers non-exempt from the FLSAs overtime render?Decision NO Rationale The court of justice began by stating the even when an employee spends less than 50% of his time on focusing, as the plaintiffs claim they did, worry might still be the employees primary duty if accepted calculates support that conclusion. The agents were 1) the relative importance of managerial duties compared to other duties 2) the frequency with which the employee makes discretional decisions 3) the employees relative freedom from lapse and 4) the relationship between the employees salary and the wages paid to employees who perform relevant non-exempt work.The record showed that the managerial duties were more critical to success than other duties. The reasoning behind this was that if the managers of broths that make more than $1 million yearbookly in sales were a ble to spend the majority of their time doing chores that other employees which they hired also perform, its still obvious that those activities of the manager were non as importance compared to the evidentiary management responsibilities performed during the lesser part of their time.In other words even though the managers spent more time doing less significant work, it still is not as significant as the management activities that they perform even though they do the management activities with 20 to 30 percent of their time. It was apparent that the plaintiffs were the highest paid being that they were the managers and given the significance of their activities they had to make many decisions such as inventory control and whom to deploy in certain positions.A part of these activities was as the highest-ranking employees in their stores to choose who to hire when to discipline employees etc. This applies to the second factor. They argued that because the territorial dominion mana gers had the authority to hire more senior employees and set rates of pay, that they did not have the full power to make discretionary decisions however this does not change that management was their primary duty because the discretion may be limited to the company and its desires for uniformity.The third factor in determining if management was the employees primary duty was the employees relative freedom from supervision. The plaintiffs had claimed that this factor was not conclusive since the partition managers were always coming into their stores. They had claimed that since the district managers came on a frequent basis they did not have the freedom from supervision. The court found that the managers still had enough discretionary power and freedom from supervision to qualify for the executive exemption.In other words even though the district managers spent substantial amounts of time in the Plaintiffs stores they still had the responsibility of maintaining the store and its op erations and had enough freedom from supervision according to the courts. The fourth factor was the relationship between the employees salary and the wages paid to employees who perform relevant non exempt work. Basically here the court said that there was no evidence that their compensation was close to that of some assistant managers which was the Plaintiffs tune on the matter.And it was without a doubt that they had nearly twice the total annual compensation received by their highest-paid supervisors. And they also received bonuses that were not visible(prenominal) to everyone. Thus after looking at all the factors the court discrete in favor of Starbucks and dismissed the claims, who were exempt from the FLSAs overtime provisions as executive employees. The court also said that the plaintiffs primary duty was management.