You are exempt employee

Your argument is nonsensical, what are the relationships between (1) exempt employee and timesheet; (2) exempt employee with partial work day? What are you trying to prove?

1. The way to prove a case is (1) if A then B; (2) C is A; (3) if C then B.

(1) if I am a non-exempt employee, I am entitled to $5000 backpay.
(2) I am a non-exempt employee because ....
(3) therefore, I am entitled to $5000 backpay.

Please prove (2), starting with the definition of "non-exempt" employee.

2. Here is how I (your company) prove that you are an exempt employee:
https://www.illinois.gov/idol/laws-rules/fls/pages/overtime-exemption.aspx

You are a professional as defined in above link:

"Whose primary duty consists of the performance of work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study; and Consistently exercises discretion and judgment"

Only those workers need close supervision such as manual labor (janitors, machine operators, bus drivers) are not exempt employees.

Every HR professional know this, your argument is easy to rebut.

3. Your old supervisor left the company might have nothing to do with your case, it is 10 years after the fact anyway. Don't get your hopes up.

Lastly, this is not a court hearing, but an administrative hearing.  The rule of evidence is looser than court hearing, but the administrative judge can stop  you if you ramble on like pile up irrelevant evidence like those in your post.  Focus your limited time to prove you are non-exempt employee.

Good luck. 

所有跟帖： 

• 他寫錯了，是去年的事，不是10年前。同意你說的，證明自己實際上是non-exempt.另外覺得不要請律師，5000還不夠律師花的 -Manymore- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/13/2014 postreply 22:28:12

• 樓主的strong argument 是他/她原文中的2。 其依據見內 -CheGuevara- ♂ (7694 bytes) () 11/13/2014 postreply 22:43:29

• LZ是part-time exempt -lexm5- ♂ (867 bytes) () 11/14/2014 postreply 04:57:48

• 我是full time exempt, 但公司在扣工資這一點上所做的事已經事實上將我們這些 exempt employee 當成 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/14/2014 postreply 18:06:11

• "原公司是一周工作35小時製度" How can this be full time exempt? -lexm5- ♂ (0 bytes) () 11/14/2014 postreply 18:16:29

• 傳統行業的一些老公司的確就是這種製度。很多員工一輩子就隻在這家公司工作，因為喜歡這樣輕鬆的工作環境。 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/14/2014 postreply 18:23:45

• 您說得非常對。 感謝您找出來的這些法律文字。 這個周末我要好好研究一下。 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/14/2014 postreply 18:03:00

• DOL需要的是1)35HR/W的證據。2)你所說的那種克扣工錢已成為公司的慣例 -CheGuevara- ♂ (833 bytes) () 11/15/2014 postreply 22:39:32

• 回答問題1）： 我的paycheck 可證明。 比如我最後一張 paycheck, 他們扣掉我兩天的工資， 是按每天7小時計算的 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (407 bytes) () 11/16/2014 postreply 19:30:41

• 切格瓦拉先生， 麻煩您解釋一下“如果印度人從來沒有開會，email解釋過， 你就不會處於不利的局麵." . 我是法律菜鳥，此處看 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/16/2014 postreply 19:39:00

• 沒看明白您說的 ““如果印度人從來沒有開會，email解釋過， 你就不會處於不利的局麵." 求解釋。多謝。 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/16/2014 postreply 20:10:14

• 我是指克扣工錢後，印度人發現不對有沒有開會，email補救過，因為 -CheGuevara- ♂ (1227 bytes) () 11/17/2014 postreply 00:21:09

• 印度人沒有覺得不對， 公司在收到勞動部門轉給他們的我的wage claim 後， 律師沒有進行任何調查 （連我是男是女都沒搞清楚 -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (857 bytes) () 11/17/2014 postreply 11:24:52

• 我覺得你因該強調 -CheGuevara- ♂ (1534 bytes) () 11/17/2014 postreply 23:26:07

• 完全讚同您的意見。 我6月份給他們的回複以及現在我準備 hearing 都是采取您提的這個主張和思路。再次致謝！ -遠浦歸舟- ♀ (0 bytes) () 11/18/2014 postreply 20:55:30