Casino Table Supervisors Not Owed Overtime
Based on Responsibilities, Federal Court Says

Table games supervisors at a Harrah's casino in Indiana were not owed overtime because they exhibited the discretion and independent judgment necessary to be classified as administrative employees, a federal court in Indiana ruled Dec. 4 (Allen v. Harrah's Enter. Inc., N.D. Ind., No. 04-128, 12/4/06).
Rejecting the Fair Labor Standards Act claims of 31 table games supervisors at the East Chicago, Ind., casino, Judge Andrew R. Rodovich of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana said that the employees who oversee dealers and games during their shifts demonstrated the level of responsibility necessary to satisfy the duties requirement of the administrative exemption.

"The administrative nature of the supervisors ... is made clear based on the relationship to Harrah's customers," Rodovich explained. "These activities are beyond routine clerical tasks."

The court focused on the evidence that table supervisors were the first groups of table games employees who are able to offer discounts or free meals to unhappy customers, as well as offer "comps" to casino customers who were spending a lot of money or who had significant winnings. In addition, the court said the supervisors were responsible for monitoring games and identifying unusual behavior or irregularities that could affect the integrity of the casino.

"[T]he plaintiffs routinely exercised discretion with respect to significant matters in the operation of the casino," the judge said, pointing to Harrah's argument that the employees coached dealers, developed performance appraisals of dealers, and were responsible for opening and closing games.

Oversaw Dealers

The supervisors were one level above dealers on the casino floor; they answered to a casino manager. They were responsible for making sure dealers were well trained and resolving problems on the casino floor, including mediating conflicts with customers. The supervisors decided when new games needed to be opened or when less business meant games should be closed, although these decisions were done in cooperation with managers with more authority.
In addition, the supervisors observed dealers and determined when discipline may be appropriate or when a commendation was appropriate. In addition, supervisors "rated" players to see who deserved special services. The supervisors helped hire dealers and had input into whether dealers received raises.

The workers sued for overtime and the failure to receive allegedly promised compensatory time.

In finding there was no FLSA violation, the court said the supervisors were being overly literal in interpreting the FLSA regulations and that they failed to account for all of their responsibilities when determining what were exempt tasks and which tasks were nonexempt.

Arguments 'Too Literal.'

For instance, the plaintiffs argued that even though they completed performance appraisals on dealers, those only occurred twice a year and therefore were not tasks performed routinely.
"The arguments present far too literal an accounting of the plaintiffs' time," the judge explained. "While the physical [appraisal] may have been generated only biannually, the content that a table games supervisor was expected to address in [an appraisal] reflected insight into dealers gained through day-to-day observation of that dealer."

Similarly, the judge said the plaintiffs were being too literal when they said that unhappy customers did not arise every day and therefore offering compensation was not a daily occurrence. The court pointed to the FLSA regulations prior to the 2004 revisions for the confusion over the specifics of evaluation frequency.

"[R]egardless of whether Harrah's experienced unhappy customers on a daily basis, it is undisputed that every such occurrence was the responsibility of the table games supervisor to identify and address initially," the court concluded.

Joel W. Rice of Fisher & Phillips in Chicago represented Harrah's. Karl K. Vanzo and Michael P. Massucci of Timothy F. Kelly & Associates in Crown Point, Ind., represented the workers.