Quicken Loans Mortgage

Approximately two and a half day long, the panel of judges issued a defence decision on Thursday evening, stating that the credit clerks were duly exempt from FLSA administration and were not eligible for compensation for overtime. When submitting a Quicken judgment, the panel achieved two important results. At first, the panel of judges found that Quicken's credit officer had a major role to play in "providing desk or non-manual work directly related to the Quicken Loans or its clients' general managerial or operational work.

It is particularly important in that it directly contradicts the Ministry of Labour's FLSA 2010-1 interpretation, in which the EMEA took the view that the main task of mortgage credit professionals working in the sector was distribution and not administration. Since the administrator's interpretation did not appear to be founded on a particular de facto examination by the DOL, employer may reason that the jury's ruling in the Quicken case indicates that the Ministry of Labour's conclusion on the mortgage credit officers' employment obligations was either incorrect or at least less than universally applicable.

These results may also impact on the esteem that the judiciary is prepared to give to the administrator's interpretation. In addition, the panel found that the claimants were exercising judgement and judgement in important cases. That finding is also significant because the plaintiffs' lawyers, who sue for extra hours on mortgage credit officers' own account, habitually claim that the activity is merely the routine implementation of credit standards and not the kind of demanding investment research that justifies the implementation of the waiver.

Obviously, in the Quicken case, the panel of judges dismissed that point. On the most basic plane, reflecting the Quicken ruling, is that an employer who is willing to pursue false classification cases to closure can gain. However, this judgement is likely to resonate throughout the mortgage sector, reducing the pressures on respondents to resolve disputes and reducing the comparative value of other cases underway.