” D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Baltimore Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 259-60 (4th Cir.2013) (quoting Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, 137 L.Ed.2d 79 (1997)). 14 . The district court’s conclusion that the directly related element was likely satisfied was based in part on the fact that Investigators’ work is used to assist GEICO claims adjusters in adjusting claims. See Calderon v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 917 F.Supp.2d 428, 441 (D.Md.2012). 15 . “A job title alone is insufficient to establish ding that administrative exemption covered claims adjusters who "determine whether the loss is covered, set reserves, decide who is to blame for the loss and negotiate with the insured or his lawyer”); Cheatham v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F.3d 578, 585 (5th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Indeed, if the fact that an employee's
holding that exemption covered adjusters who advised the management represented allstate and negotiated on allstates behalf holding one who claims tax exemption has burden of showing entitlement to exemption holding that the government cannot waive foia exemption 6 on behalf of the individual whose privacy interests the exemption protects holding act qualifies as exemption statute under exemption 3 holding that there is no need to consider exemption 6 separately if information was compiled for law enforcement purposes because exemption 7c constitutes broader protection so any information falling under exemption 6 is covered by exemption 7c