541.103 calls for a comparison of the “salary” of the allegedly exempt employee to the “wages” of other nonexempt employees. In Moore v. Tractor Supply Co., 352 F.Supp.2d. 1268, 1278-79 (S.D.Fla.2004), aff'd., 140 Fed.Appx. 168 (11th Cir.2005), the plaintiff argued that if his salary was divided by the number of hours he worked and converted to an hourly rate, his hourly rate would actually be lower than the hourly rate paid to non-exempt employees. The court rejected this comparison and simply compared the salaried employee’s weekly salary to the highest possible weekly wage .earned by the non-exempt store employees. In addition, Plaintiffs’ own expert indicates that such a comparison should not be done on an hourly basis. See Comm. Evid. 4, Farrington Depo. .2d 18, 26 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Spinden v. GS Roofing Prods. Co., 94 F.3d
holding that even though some of employees duties appeared to satisfy the directly related element the element was not satisfied where those duties were not part of his primary duty recognizing similar duties holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract holding that the amount of time devoted to managerial duties and the significance of those duties present factual questions holding that one claim was not preempted because it did not allege the violation of duties created by any welfare plan but a violation of duties as a past employer