Employment – Overtime – Administrative exemption

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has alleged a failure to pay overtime in violation of G.L.c. 151, §1B, the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment should be allowed in part and denied in part, as the defendant appropriately classified the plaintiff as exempt from July 14, 2018, until June 2020, but a jury question exists regarding the applicability of the administrative exemption from June 2020 until the plaintiff’s resignation on Oct. 21, 2022.

“After she resigned because of the ‘‘unsafe, demoralizing, and bullying environment” she says she was subjected to, the Plaintiff, Tracy Copp, brought this action against the Defendant, Nic & Zoe Company (‘Nic & Zoe’), her former employer, asserting claims under Massachusetts law (Counts I and II), federal law (Counts III and IV), and the common law (Counts V-X), and seeking damages, costs, and fees. …

“The question is whether Nic & Zoe appropriately classified Copp as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the [Massachusetts Fair Minimum Wage Law (FMWL)]. Copp argues that given the nature and circumstances of her employment as a store manager she was entitled to overtime pay, and that Nic & Zoe’s misclassification, and its failure to compensate her for the overtime hours she worked, were unlawful. … Nic & Zoe counters that Copp was not eligible for overtime compensation as a store manager where the work she performed rendered her statutorily exempt. …

“Nic & Zoe sustains its burden to show the applicability of the administrative exemption to Copp’s employment as a store manager for the period beginning on July 14, 2018, the date she started in that role, … to June 2020, when the Hingham store reopened from the pandemic. …

“In short, there can be no genuine dispute as to what Copp’s primary duty was during this period; it was not directly related to the sale of Nic & Zoe clothing but was instead ‘directly related to the running or servicing’ of the company’s business. …

“Copp argues that the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed her job responsibilities and that she ‘thereafter spent the majority of her time working on sales.’ … As Copp testified, reduced staffing levels during this period meant that she often worked alone and had to fulfill all the needs of the business with limited — and often, no — help. … As a result, Copp says that she worked ‘far more than 40 hours per week practically every week’ to keep up. …

“It is undisputed that Copp remained responsible during this period for the management duties for which she was hired, and that she continued performing those duties. To what extent, however, is not clear. …

“This question is best left to a factfinder. …

“Accordingly, Copp’s motion for summary judgment is denied as to Counts I and II; and Nic & Zoe’s motion for summary judgment is allowed in part and denied in part as to Counts I and II.”

Copp v. Nic & Zoe Company (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-214-26) (32 pages) (Kelley, U.S.M.J.) (Civil Action No. 23-12095-MPK) (April 8, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.