Business Coursework

Legal Case Brief
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Legal Case Brief
Brief of Kathleen Mims V. Starbucks Corporation
Kathleen Mims
v.
Starbucks Corporation
Facts
Kathleen Mims, Kevin Keevican alongside other Starbucks managers, filed a complaint against the corporation siting unpaid overtime and other sums warranted to their junior staff. Starbucks Corporations hires managers, supervisors, assistant managers and baristas each with specific job designations and compensations. The baristas are waiters who make drinks for and serve the customers, manage the cash register, clean and maintain the store’s equipment (Mims v. Starbucks, 2007). The manager’s role, on the other hand, is to supervise and motivate employees who include baristas, assistant managers, and the shift supervisors.
Moreover, the manager develops and oversees the implementation of strategies with the aim of improving revenues, controlling costs and complying with the corporate policies. The managers complained that during their tenure, they performed barista responsibilities that saw them work overtime and were, therefore, warranted compensations due to the baristas such as overtime pay. However, as executive employees in the corporation, the managers were not qualified for the requirements as per the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA, 1938).
Issue
The issue was whether the primary duty of the plaintiffs during employment was the management or barista work.
Holding
The court held that as the executive employees, the plaintiffs were exempt from the Fair Labor Standard’s Act’s (FLSA).

Therefore, Starbucks Corporation did not owe them any extra compensation for any additional tasks and time spent.
Reasoning
A ruling on previous cases including that of; Amos, Hall, and Marshall v. Oakdale and Mooney, III. No. 278A91. (1992), ruled in favor of the employees because they were subordinates entitled to extra pay for overtime and other requisite roles played beyond their job designations. However, the primary duty of any employee was what they did, which was of utmost value to the employer and not any other additional tasks that might be performed irrespective of whether more time was utilized on them. Therefore, considering the (1) value of managerial to other duties; (2) frequency of discretionary decisions made; (3) freedom from supervision; and (4) differences in salary, bonuses and other forms of compensation paid to exempt and non-exempt employees, management was the plaintiffs’ primary duty for the following reasons:
Although the discretion associated with management was and may be limited, the primary role of the plaintiffs was management which meant they were responsible for;
Making barista recruitment, selection, training, and hiring decisions,
Assignment of individuals to train new hires,
Disciplining the employees,
Deployments of the employees to the certain positions within the store,
Deciding on the promotions that the store would run, and;
Deciding on the product and amount of product to order.
The managerial functions listed above and which were accorded to the plaintiffs was critical to Starbucks success.
The plaintiffs qualified for the executive exemption since:
As store managers, the complainants were the only top-ranking employees in their respective stores and hence responsible for its daily operations.
Even when superiors worked nearby, departmental managers and assistants were still exempt.
There was a disparity in pay and compensation between the complainants and other employees which showed differentiated status quo because;
The annual compensation received by the plaintiffs was almost twice that paid to the highest paid shift-supervisors.
The company paid the plaintiffs bonuses and benefits not accorded to other employees.
References
Amos, Hall, and Marshall v. Oakdale and Mooney, III. No. 278A91. (1992). 331 N.C. 348, 416 S.E.2d 166.
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). (1938).
Mims v. Starbucks. No. 05-791. (2007). JU 4.15.