Case Summary
**Case Summary: Marlo v. UPS, Docket No. 7853948**
**Court**: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Year**: The case was decided in 2011.
**Background**: This case involves former UPS employee Marlo, who filed a lawsuit against United Parcel Service (UPS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Marlo claimed that UPS did not properly compensate him for overtime hours worked, arguing that the company misclassified him as an exempt employee.
**Legal Issues**: The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the classification of employees under the FLSA, particularly focusing on whether Marlo was correctly classified as an exempt employee and whether UPS violated federal labor laws by failing to pay him overtime wages.
**District Court Decision**: The district court ruled in favor of UPS, determining that Marlo was indeed classified correctly as an exempt employee under the FLSA, which meant he was not entitled to overtime pay.
**Appeal**: Marlo appealed the district court's decision, arguing that his job duties did not meet the requirements for the exemption and that he was entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of the standard 40-hour workweek.
**Ninth Circuit Decision**: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and the relevant evidence. The court ultimately reversed the district court's ruling, finding that UPS had misclassified Marlo as an exempt employee. The court concluded that Marlo's actual job duties did not align with the criteria that justified overtime exemption under the FLSA.
**Outcome**: The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings regarding Marlo's claims for unpaid overtime wages.
**Significance**: This case highlights the importance of correct employee classification under the FLSA and demonstrates how misclassification can lead to significant legal consequences for employers. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases involving claims of unpaid overtime and employee exemption statuses.
---
Note: This summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult legal professionals for more comprehensive analysis and guidance.