Exempt vs Non-Exempt

[ivanl3]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA

Two computer programmers sitting next to each other perform essentially the same tasks -- computer programming, debugging, SQL writing, financial analysis, etc.. The difference between the two of them is their efficacy. One is able to perform these tasks much quicker and for more complicated needs.

These differences in efficacy are reflected in the two programmers titles. One carries a title of Software Engineer I (SE 1) and the other Software Engineer II (SE 2). The SE 1 has base salary of $70K. The salary for the SE 2 (who performs her work with greater dexterity and for more complicated tasks) is $85K. Both are required to work an average of 55 hours per week.

The company has the SE 1 classified as non-exempt and the SE 2 as exempt. Thus the SE 1 is paid OT. The SE 2 is not paid OT.

Is their anything illegal occurring here?

 

[cbg]

If you are asking whether the law prohibits an employer from classifying two employees who do the same job differently, the answer is that it does not.

We do not have enough information to determine whether either position qualifies to be exempt (although nothing jumps out to say that it does not). But assuming that the position qualifies as exempt at all, it is quite legal for one to be exempt and one to be non-exempt.

 

[ivanl3]

Perfect!!!

Thanks.

 

[ivanl3]

Follow up question....You stated

If you are asking whether the law prohibits an employer from classifying two employees who do the same job differently, the answer is that it does not.

Is this b/c of cases like I described or are there other reasons as well? if so, what would be other examples of when companies can legally do this?

 

[pattytx]

As long as the difference is not based on a characteristic covered under the EEOC (or state equivalent), then its legal.

One of the reasons they might treat an otherwise exempt employee as nonexempt is that they are on intermittent FMLA leave.

 

[ivanl3]

As long as the difference is not based on a characteristic covered under the EEOC (or state equivalent), then its legal.
.

So do you agree that the example I gave is not covered by EEOC? See original post.

Thanks.

 

[cbg]

Based SOLELY on the information in your post, no, the EEOC does not come into this.

If there are additional facts you did not disclose, that answer could change.

 

[ivanl3]

Based SOLELY on the information in your post, no, the EEOC does not come into this.

Sorry, I do not understand this answer. Are you saying that the situation I described (no more, no less) is legal (yes/no)? Sorry for being slow here, just want to make sure I understand your opinion.

If the answer is "yes", is it "yes" b/c of the different levels of efficacy that I described or is that not a factor?

If efficacy is not a factor, I guess I am surprised (but pleased) that companies can classify two people doing the EXACT same thing with the exact same level of efficacy differently (meaning one is EXEMPT, the other is NON-EXEMPT). How are they able to do this?

If efficacy allows them to do this, it all makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks again.

 

[cbg]

I don't think I can say it any more clearly than I already have. If that's not a good enough answer for you, then you are welcome to pay an attorney for one you like better.

 

[pattytx]

If efficacy allows them to do this, it all makes perfect sense to me.

Yes, it does. The efficiency of a particular employee is not a legally protected characteristic. See now?

 

[ivanl3]

I don't think I can say it any more clearly than I already have. If that's not a good enough answer for you, then you are welcome to pay an attorney for one you like better.

If that is the case, you are an extremely ineffective communicator. Here is a tip, when answering a yes/no question, start by stating one of the following;

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I don't know

Then proceed to elaborate if you believe you can provide additional information that is salient. By not beginning with one of the answers listed above, you leave the audience to interpret your answers (potentially incorrectly) or requiring follow up questions for further clarification (as I did).

I find it quite remarkable that you chose to answer my question, but are now unable to state which one of the four choices listed above your vague response was meant to imply

Also, answering questions on forums is voluntary so I further suggest not answering at all in case #4.

Your inability to communicate clearly is even more remarkable give the number of posts you have made.

Wow.

 

[ivanl3]

Yes, it does. The efficiency of a particular employee is not a legally protected characteristic. See now?

Yes. I now understand perfectly. Thank you for the clear answer.

 

[Zigner]

If that is the case, you are an extremely ineffective communicator. Here is a tip, when answering a yes/no question, start by stating one of the following;

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I don't know

Then proceed to elaborate if you believe you can provide additional information that is salient. By not beginning with one of the for answers listed above, you leave the audience to interpret your answers (potentially incorrectly) or asking follow up questions for further clarification (as I did).

I find it quite remarkable that you chose to answer my question, but are now unable to state which one of the four choices listed above your vague response was meant to imply

Also, answering questions on forums is voluntary so I further suggest not answering at all in case #4.

Your inability to communicate clearly is even more remarkable give the number of posts you have made.

Wow.

You're welcome for the accurate and free advice you've received. If you want anything else now, you'll have to pay an attorney for it

 

[cbg]

I have already indicated which choice applies. If you are incapable of understanding that, it's not my fault.

 

[ivanl3]

I have already indicated which choice applies. If you are incapable of understanding that, it's not my fault.

As the communicator, it is at least partially your fault. I now have my answer from another member who is an effective communicator. I suggest you read their posts in an attempt to glean that mastery of the English language.