Plaintiffs were accountants who worked for KPMG LLP as audit associates. They brought suit alleging that they regularly worked overtime, but were not paid for it. KPMG argued that because they worked as accountants, which was one of the learned professionals specifically identified in the FLSA regulations as “a field of science or learning” they were exempt from the FLSA overtime provisions, and were not entitled to overtime pay. The district court entered summary judgment for KPMG, and plaintiffs appealed. The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for KPMG.

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

2. On what grounds did the plaintiffs argue that their work did not require “advanced knowledge”? Why did the court not agree? 

3. On what grounds did the plaintiffs argue that their work did not require them to employ knowledge “customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instructions”? Why did the court not agree?