Fact: In this case Mims V Starbucks, Kevin Keevican and Michael Terrazas both former Store Managers at Defendant Starbucks Corporation, claim that they were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act "FLSA", 29 U.S.C. After considering a lot of different aspects to the claim, court ruled in favor of starbucks . The claim of the plaintiffs was that they were working 70 hours per week, juggling barista duties and other errands along with their managerial responsibilities. Their managerial duties included tasks such as driving up sales in the store, supervising staff, managing inventory, keeping tabs on payroll, following up about safety measures, Motivating staff, Hiring and Firing. Along with the managerial duties mentioned above, they were also designated to serve customers, clean up and make coffee. Mims and several other managers got tired of working so hard to not even be compensated for most of the hard work and effort they are putting into the company. On the other hand, regular barista’s were getting compensated overtime pay without all the hassles of a manager. So, they decided to sue starbucks under the fair labour standards act. The respective plaintiffs claimed that they performed managerial duties during their time but 70-80 % of their time was used performing chores assigned to a barista. Some expressed dissatisfaction towards the situation by describing the managerial position as a glorified barista position not of a manager's. …show more content…
Plaintiffs were exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime provisions as executive employees. During their period of employment, was management the plaintiff's “primary