Creat a case brief...In Austin v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc., 240 F.R.D. 420 (W.D. Wis. 2006), a "law specialist" sued her employer for failure to pay overtime. The employee argued that she and others in similar positions were non-exempt employees and therefore were entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. To qualify for the position of "law specialist" within the Office of General Counsel, an applicant "needed a general college degree, a paralegal education or equivalent experience." Id. at 423. The plaintiff, Austin, had a Bachelor's degree in legal assistance and criminal justice and at the time of suit had worked as a paralegal for more

the requirements for exempt status. However, in Austin v. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc., 240 F.R.D. 420 (W.D. Wis. 2006), a "law specialist" sued her employer for failure to pay overtime. The employee argued that she and others in similar positions were non-exempt employees and therefore were entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. To qualify for the position of "law specialist" within the Office of General Counsel, an applicant "needed a general college degree, a paralegal education or equivalent experience." Id. at 423. The plaintiff, Austin, had a Bachelor's degree in legal assistance and criminal justice and at the time of suit had worked as a paralegal for more tan 25 ycars. At CUNA the paralegal plaintifr was resporesible for managing ases where claims against the insurance had been filed. After a notmecturitis her duties increased to include maintaining the Litigation tearn's "Kinowledge Marugement" duta: base. To maintain the Knowledge Management databuse, pladitif was required to read briefs from outside counsel and opinion letters from inhouse lawyers, summarize the content of the brief or opinion letter, and index the summary by topic so it coold be fornd again if similar levoes aroce in later cases. If. at 487 . The court found that this type of work was included in the kind that requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment directly related to management or general business operations. This kind of work includes, but is not limited to, the following: work in functional areas such as tax; finaince, accounting; budgeting; auditing; insurance; quality control; purchasing; procurement; advertising marketing: research; safety and health; personnel management; human resources; employee benefits; labor relations; public relations; govemment. relations; computer network, internet and database administration, legal and regulatory compliance; and similar activities. 14. at 428429 , citing 29 C.F.R. $541.201(b). Employees who act as advisers or consultants to their employer's clients or customers perform work that is considered to be "directly related to management or general business operations." Id, citing 29 C.F.R. $541.201 (c). Anstin's work in assuring that her employer's insurance policies were properly administered and the contested claims were managed with outside counsel was considered "directly related to the [employer's] general business operations and crucial to its functioning." Therefore, under this element, performing work directly related to the management of the employer, the legal specialist was considered exempt. The second element discussed, independence of the employee, also was decided in the employer's favor. The paralegal was found to be exempt from overtime. The court was careful to explain that [a]lthough the exercise of discretion and independent judgment implies that the employee has authority to make an independent choice, free from immediate direction or supervision, the term "discretion and independent judgment" does not require that the decisions made by an employee be free from review or that the employee have unlimited authority. Id. at 430 , citing 29 C.F.R. $541.202 (c). The number of times that the employee actually deviates from the standard practice of her employer is not determinative of her actual authority to do so. Austin had the discretion to reject outside counsel's recommendations on a particular matter if she disagreed with them. The fact that she rarely did so was not dispositive of that factor. The paralegal had the authority to act independently and to exercise discretion in handling cases worth up to $50,000. The fact that the paralegal could commit her employer to such a sum of money without supervisory approval was indicative of her independent authority. On this element as well, the paralegal was found to be exempt from overtime