Alleged violation of state minimum wage laws; Michigan Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (WOWA); MCL 408.934 & 408.934a; Exception for professional & administrative employees; MCL 408.934a(4); 29 CFR § 541.300(a); MI Admin Code R 408.701(b); “Matters of significance”; “Professional capacity”

Holding that the exception for professional and administrative employees in MCL 408.934a(4) does not apply to MCL 408.934(1)’s minimum wage requirement, the court vacated the part of the trial court’s order dismissing plaintiff-Ahmed’s claim that defendant-Halo Medical Group failed to pay her a minimum wage for all hours worked. It also found that the trial court erred in dismissing her overtime claim under the WOWA, concluding that summary disposition was not supportable on the basis that she served in an administrative capacity or based on her “serving in a ‘professional capacity.’” Before her termination, she worked for Halo “as ‘Technical Director of Cardiovascular Sonography.’ Ahmed scanned patients’ hearts and prepared reports.” She asserted that Halo violated MCL 408.934 and 408.934a “by failing to pay her overtime compensation for hours worked beyond 40, failing to pay her during ‘breaks’ actually worked, and failing to pay her for any hours worked beyond her 40-hour schedule.” As to the minimum wage requirement in MCL 408.934(1), MCL 408.934a(4)’s exceptions “apply only to the requirements outlined in MCL 408.934a(1)-(3) pursuant to the plain language of the statute.” Thus, neither Halo nor the trial “court could rely on Ahmed’s purported professional or administrative employment to excuse” a failure to pay her a minimum wage for all hours worked. As to overtime, the trial court did not consider any of the relevant factors on the third required element to qualify as an administrative employee – use of “discretion and independent judgment in matters of significance” – in rendering its judgment. Halo did not raise this exemption until its reply brief, and the only information from which the trial court could find that Ahmed acted with independence was an affidavit that it asserted it did not rely upon. The only relevant condition as to the professional capacity exemption was whether she “performed ‘[w]ork in a field of science or learning that requires knowledge acquired by a prolonged course of specialized instruction.’” In its summary disposition motion, Halo relied only on her title to support applicability of this exemption. While the court concluded it “may very well be true that Ahmed’s position is professional in nature,” the trial court could not reach “this conclusion as a matter of law on the record before it.” Vacated and remanded.