United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
SCOTT B. TRAMMELL, Plaintiff,
AMDOCS, INC., Defendant.
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court on the Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendant Amdocs, Inc.
(“Defendant” or “Amdocs”). (Doc. #
33). The Motion is fully briefed, and the parties filed
evidentiary submissions. (Docs. # 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 43).
After careful review, the court concludes that the Motion is
due to be granted.
Relevant Undisputed Facts 
Scott B. Trammell (“Plaintiff” or
“Trammell”) was employed by Amdocs, a computer
software company that provides billing and customer
management services for communications service providers,
from March 2010 to February 2015. (Docs. # 34 at p. 3; 40 at
p. 2). He brings this action against Defendant asserting a
claim for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207. (Doc. # 1). In
particular, he contends that Defendant failed to pay him at
the appropriate overtime rate for each hour worked in excess
of forty hours during each workweek between August 2014 and
January 2015. (Id. at p. 4). Defendant denies that
it violated the FLSA and asserts that Defendant was exempt
from the overtime rule because he meets the
highly-compensated employee provision of the FLSA. (Doc. # 34
at p. 1). Alternatively, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is
exempt under the administrative exemption to the FLSA.
(Id. at p. 1-2).
worked as a Project Management Office Professional
(“PMO Professional”)from August 25, 2014 until he
left Defendant's employment. (Docs. # 1 at p. 3; 34 at p.
3). He earned $4, 251.84 on a semi-monthly basis. (Docs. # 34
at p. 3; 40 at p. 2). Plaintiff's base salary was over
$100, 000, and he also was eligible for and received certain
awards and bonuses in addition to his base salary.
Professional role definition document, which was submitted by
Defendant, reflects that the job duties and responsibilities
of a PMO Professional include building and tracking holistic
project plans, ensuring that projects are correctly planned
and that work is executed to meet planned deliverables,
providing an integrative view and analysis of various project
aspects within the program to enable better decision making,
ensuring that information is gathered and disseminated to all
stakeholders and management, overseeing end-to-end project
outcomes, tracking and highlighting risks and trends, raising
concerns of possible project deviations, performing project
audits and reviews, preparing risk management reports, and
developing appropriate contingency plans, among other
responsibilities. (Doc. # 35-1 at p. 5). However, Plaintiff
denies that he performed the duties and responsibilities of a
PMO during his last position with Defendant. (Doc. # 40 at p.
2). The parties are in agreement that Plaintiff's job
duties as a PMO Professional consisted entirely of non-manual
office work and included the following tasks: data
verification, producing slides and presentations to report
the status of projects, verifying information about project
releases, creating (at least) pieces of presentations on the
status of various projects, reviewing and compiling data from
multiple sources, reviewing and ensuring the accuracy of
project reporting data, mining data and generating weekly
reports of that data, entering and verifying data in a
dashboard, combining multiple data sources into a single
report, meeting with and directly interfacing with AT&T with
respect to upcoming releases, preparing and presenting a
report to AT&T on at least one occasion, and providing
instructions and guidance to Defendant's employees
regarding entering and verifying information about project
releases. (Docs. # 34 at p.3-5; 40 at p. 2-4). In his
Affidavit, Plaintiff states that his “position as a
‘PMO Professional' consisted almost exclusively of
generating reports and responding to email
correspondence.” (Doc. # 40-1 at p. 2).
August 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his complaint against
Defendant in federal court. (Doc. # 1). Defendant filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, which asserted that Plaintiff
was an exempt employee under the FLSA's
highly-compensated employee exemption, on October 19, 2015.
(Doc. # 8). In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment,
Defendant included a printout of Plaintiff's LinkedIn
profile, which suggested that Plaintiff managed seven
employees and two applications and that Plaintiff's
duties as a PMO Professional included those listed on the PMO
Professional role definition (Doc. # 35-1 at p. 5). (Doc. #
9-4 at p. 2-3).
6, 2016, the court denied Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. # 8) because Plaintiff's sworn denial that
he did not engage in certain job duties created a question of
material fact concerning whether Plaintiff was a
highly-compensated employee. (Docs. # 18; 19). In the
Memorandum Opinion, the court noted that “timing is
everything.” (Doc. # 18 at p. 1-2). Defendants'
Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 33), which is
currently before the court, presents additional evidence that
Plaintiff was an exempt employee under the FLSA and also
demonstrates that Defendant needed additional time to prove
-- as a matter of law -- that Plaintiff was an exempt
employee under the FLSA. (Docs. # 34, 35).
Summary Judgment Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is
proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for
summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of
informing the court of the basis for its motion and
identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings which
it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Id. at 323. Once the moving party has
met its burden, Rule 56 requires the non-moving party to go
beyond the pleadings and -- by pointing to affidavits, or
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and/or admissions on
file -- designate specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
substantive law will identify which facts are material and
which are irrelevant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All reasonable doubts
about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved
in favor of the non-movant. See Allen v. Bd. of Pub.
Educ. for Bibb Cnty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1314 (11th Cir.
2007); Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112,
1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A dispute is genuine “if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson,
477 U.S. at 248. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is
not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.
See Id. at 249.
faced with a “properly supported motion for summary
judgment, [the non-moving party] must come forward with
specific factual evidence, presenting more than mere
allegations.” Gargiulo v. G.M. Sales, Inc.,
131 F.3d 995, 999 (11th Cir. 1997). As Anderson
teaches, under Rule 56(c) a plaintiff may not simply rest on
his allegations made in the complaint; instead, as the party
bearing the burden of proof at trial, he must come forward
with at least some evidence to support each element essential
to his case at trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for
summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.'” Id. at 248 (citations
judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make
a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex
Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. “Summary judgment may be
granted if the non-moving party's evidence is merely
colorable or is not significantly probative.”
Sawyer v. Sw. Airlines Co., 243 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1262
(D. Kan. 2003) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at
the summary judgment stage the judge's function is not
himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
“Essentially, the inquiry is ‘whether the
evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to the jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.'”
Sawyer, 243 F.Supp.2d at 1262 (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52); see also LaRoche
v. Denny's, Inc., 62 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1371 ...