The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 20 partially upheld a district court ruling that three former internal workers at a Randstad office in Troy, Mich., were exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

However, the Court of Appeals reversed a portion of the ruling in favor of Randstad saying some positions in which the workers served were not exempt.

The three workers had sued seeking overtime pay, claiming they were wrongly classified as exempt from overtime.

The National Law Review characterized the Court of Appeal’s decision as a win for staffing firms, saying it clarifies the framework for using the FLSA “administrative exemption” to overtime for staffing firm internal employees. It noted firms should ensure workers have enough discretion and ability to use discretion in order to qualify for the overtime exemption.

FLSA requires overtime pay for workers who work longer than 40 hours per week, but it exempts executive, administrative or professional employees from that requirement, according to the court. This includes workers who earn more than $455 per week, those whose primary duty is “directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers,” or whose primary duty includes discretion or independent judgement regarding significant matters.

Only the last criterion — discretion and independent judgement — was up for consideration in this case.

The three workers held a variety of positions between December 2011 and July 2014 — ranging from “talent acquisition specialist” to “assistant branch manager.” Other positions included “staffing consultant,” “account manager” and “senior account manager.”

In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling that the workers’ time as account managers, senior account manager and assistant branch manager qualified as exempt from overtime.

When acting as account managers, the court found the workers used independent judgement to match candidates with clients based on personality and corporate culture. The workers also wrote job descriptions, negotiated pay and how much to bill clients, counseled temps and dealt with unsuccessful placements.

The court also found the account manager position also qualified for overtime exemption based on independent judgment.

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals rejected a portion of the district court’s decision and found the workers were not exempt when their job titles were staffing consultants. Although the job was a mix of both exempt and nonexempt work, staffing consultants had little or no ability to deviate from established policies and procedures, spent less than half their time on exempt tasks and had relatively little freedom from supervision.

Workers’ time as talent acquisition specialists, which focused only sourcing candidates, was also found not to be exempt, reversing another portion of the district court’s ruling.

The Sixth Circuit also found Randstad in this case did not establish a good faith reliance on an opinion letter from the Department of Labor when making certain jobs exempt from overtime. Erin Norris Bass of law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP wrote on this aspect of the case in Lexology, saying employers must construe such letters narrowly.

The full text of the ruling can be downloaded.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covers federal appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.