Yatram Indergit worked for Rite Aid as a store manager from 1979 to 2007. Indergit’s duties at Rite Aid included disciplining employees, interviewing employees, training employees, scheduling employee...

Yatram Indergit worked for Rite Aid as a store manager from 1979 to 2007. Indergit’s duties at Rite Aid included disciplining employees, interviewing employees, training employees, scheduling employee hours, performing various office duties, running cash registers, stocking shelves, and so on. When Indergit’s employment was terminated in 2007, he filed suit against Rite Aid for, among other things, failure to pay overtime as required by the FLSA. The defendants contended that Indergit’s employment fell within the executive exemption to the overtime requirement. Indergit contended that the majority of his job responsibilities were the same as those performed by nonexempt employees. Moreover, Indergit argued that his job duties were primarily nonexempt, as shown by evidence that nonexempt employees previously performed his duties. Rite Aid moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that could be heard by the trier of fact. Is there an issue of material fact? What evidence would be necessary to decide whether Indergit’s job responsibilities made him exempt from the overtime requirements? Indergit v. Rite Aid Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32322 (2010).