Hodgson v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT COMPANY

346 F. Supp. 1102, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 875
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina
DecidedAugust 25, 1972
DocketCiv. A. C-69-G-68
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 346 F. Supp. 1102 (Hodgson v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hodgson v. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUT COMPANY, 346 F. Supp. 1102, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 875 (M.D.N.C. 1972).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

MERHIGE, District Judge.

This action is brought by the Secretary of Labor, pursuant to Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., to enjoin defendant from violating the overtime requirements of the Act, and to restrain continued withholding of unpaid overtime compensation to its driver-salesman employees, and violations of the record-keeping provisions of the Act. Jurisdiction of the Court is attained pursuant to Title 29 U.S.C. § 217.

The rights and privileges of the parties are governed by the Act and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

Defendant, upon whom the burden rests, contends that the employees in question are outside salesmen within the exemptions set forth in 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).

The law requires that the claimed exemption must be narrowly construed against the employer seeking to assert it. See Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., 361 U.S. 388, 392, 80 S.Ct. 453, 4 L.Ed.2d 393 (1959). The employer must prove that the exemption is applicable by plain and unmistakable evidence. See Arnold v. Ben Kanowsky, Inc., supra. In short, the exemptions are limited to those falling expressly within the statute. Wirtz v. Lunsford, 404 F.2d 693, 697 (6th Cir. 1968); Hodgson v. Klages Coal and Ice Co., 435 F.2d 377, 382 (6th Cir. 1970).

The issue is primarily one of fact. Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545, 550, 67 S.Ct. 883, 91 L.Ed. 1088 (1947).

The Court having heard the evidence concludes that the defendant has borne the required burden, and considering all the facts adduced bearing on the work of the employees in question as a whole, is satisfied that they are outside salesmen to whom the exemption applies. This conclusion is based on the following findings of fact:

Defendant, Krispy Kreme Doughnut Company, is a corporation having a branch place of business and doing business at 1603 Battleground Avenue, Greensboro, Guilford County, North Carolina, where at all times pertinent hereto it has been engaged in the manufacture, sale and distribution of doughnuts and other pastry products. Defendant has not maintained a record of daily or weekly hours worked by its driver salesmen, each of whom has averaged about 46 hours per work week, and has compensated its driver salesmen by a salary or by commissions, or by a combination of salary and commissions; defendant has not established an hourly rate of compensation for its driver salesmen and has therefore not compensated said employees at additional half-time rates for hours worked in excess of 40, 42 or 44 hours per work week.

Defendant has developed quality controls on its mix and methods of processing doughnuts designed to produce a line of doughnuts of uniform high quality. *1104 The products are displayed for sale in the retail area of its establishment or packaged for outside distribution in various sales territories radiating from the plant. During the period here involved, Greensboro had some seven or eight such outside sales territories. These territories have geographical limitations, with a route salesman assigned to each. The territories are designed to the end that considering many factors, the sales potential are approximately the same in each.

All Krispy Kreme products sold in the various territories are displayed for sale in distinctively colored packages. Doughnuts are described as an “impulse” item and their sales depend upon factors of freshness, attractiveness in appearance, packaging, placement and display, so as to initiate the buying impulse of the consumer. They compete with numerous other impulse items. The factors of perishability, short shelf life, and narrow time period for consumption create special problems in the sale and distribution of doughnuts as compared to other snack or breakfast items. Defendant’s uncontradicted testimony is to the effect that doughnuts have the shortest shelf life of competing impulse food items.

The outside sales territories in the Greensboro area have gone from the original one operated out of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to eight, all being operated from the Greensboro plant. After a route develops in sales to the point that actual sales plus potential market indicate the desirability of splitting the old route, and established customers, the sales territory is divided and other areas assigned, so that two sales territories are created. In some instances only a very small portion of established customers is assigned to a new territory and the salesman assigned has the task of obtaining new customers sufficient in number and quality to make the new territory profitable. Greensboro has developed its sales territories by both of these methods. One man is assigned to each such territory and is designated by the Company as the route salesman in charge.

Each route salesman is responsible in his territory for obtaining new regular customers; for keeping and serving old regular customers; for developing additional sales to established regular customers; employing practices and techniques to meet and combat constant competition from other snack items and from some four or more other doughnut distributors. Each route salesman determines the starting time, pattern, and number of hours to be devoted to serving his sales territory, being held responsible for results only. Each salesman determines the number of doughnuts to be ordered daily to service his customers, and plant production for outside sales is based on such orders. In so ordering, each salesman daily takes into account weather factors, competition, the day of the week and month, past sales history of each customer and special factors. All of these factors, and others, are considered by each salesman in ordering production for his territory. Each submits his order daily for the amount and variety of doughnuts desired for the next day. The order form also includes space for ordering samples which are not charged to the salesman. All other items are charged and each salesman must account each day by cash or credit slips for his entire order. Each salesman extends credit on his own responsibility to certain customers but may submit names of customers for Company-approved credit.

Each salesman is also responsible for development of “special order” business. Special order business arises from contacts with institutions, organizations or groups which are desirous of raising funds to support various activities. Each salesman builds up a listing of such special order customers and attempts to obtain additional ones.

Each salesman receives compensation based solely, or in large part, on a percentage commission on net sales, both to regular and special order customers. *1105

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Florentino Meza v. Intelligent Mexican Marketing
720 F.3d 577 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
Schmidt v. Eagle Waste & Recycling, Inc.
598 F. Supp. 2d 928 (W.D. Wisconsin, 2009)
Barnick v. Wyeth
522 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (C.D. California, 2007)
Miller v. Farmer Bros.
150 P.3d 598 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)
Miranda-Albino v. Ferrero, Inc.
455 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D. Puerto Rico, 2006)
McLaughlin v. Murphy
436 F. Supp. 2d 732 (D. Maryland, 2005)
Olivo v. GMAC Mortgage Corp.
374 F. Supp. 2d 545 (E.D. Michigan, 2004)
Nielsen v. Devry, Inc.
302 F. Supp. 2d 747 (W.D. Michigan, 2003)
Fields v. AOL Time Warner, Inc.
261 F. Supp. 2d 971 (W.D. Tennessee, 2003)
Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc.
179 F.3d 1260 (Tenth Circuit, 1999)
DeWig v. Landshire, Inc.
666 N.E.2d 1204 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1996)
Nunneley v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
564 P.2d 231 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1977)
Northwest Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security
547 P.2d 908 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
346 F. Supp. 1102, 20 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodgson-v-krispy-kreme-doughnut-company-ncmd-1972.